RSA ad on unaccompanied L drivers

magicbastarder · 11-01-2019 9:30am

Hard-hitting TV road safety ad ‘not about retribution’
Noel Clancy’s wife and daughter were killed in a crash with an unaccompanied learner

A widower who lost his wife and daughter in tragic circumstances when their car was hit by an unaccompanied learner driver has defended a hard-hitting Road Safety Authority ad on TV that he has made and insisted it was not about retribution but about highlighting changes in the law.

Noel Clancy (59) from Kilworth, north Cork, lost his wife, Geraldine (58), and daughter Louise (22) when their Ford Focus was struck by a car driven by an unaccompanied learner driver, their neighbour Susan Gleeson, then 20, at Ballyderown, Kilworth, on December 22nd, 2015.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/hard-hitting-tv-road-safety-ad-not-about-retribution-1.3754069

Hotblack Desiato · 11-01-2019 5:56pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

those stats are meaningless without information about how many of those fatalities occurred while the learner was unaccompanied.

Also meaningless because learner drivers drive less than full licence holders. Accident rate per million km would be meaningful.

User142 · 11-01-2019 6:18pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Also meaningless because learner drivers drive less than full licence holders. Accident rate per million km would be meaningful.

Also more likely to hold a licence and not use it.

And a huge percentage of Learners are driving at low speeds just learning basics of car control and then improving their skills while under the constant supervision of a parent/sibling/SO or instructor.

Its nonsense to even try imply that this statistic justifies allowing learner permit holders driving unaccompanied or that they are better drivers. If anything it suggests the restrictions on learner permit holders work. It prevents most people from passing the theory test, buying a car and then driving as if they are qualified.

dense · 12-01-2019 12:43am

magicbastarder wrote: »

those stats are meaningless without information about how many of those fatalities occurred while the learner was unaccompanied.

A bit of rational thinking here.
That won't go down well, I can tell you.

dense · 12-01-2019 12:51am

magicbastarder wrote: »

Hard-hitting TV road safety ad ‘not about retribution’
Noel Clancy’s wife and daughter were killed in a crash with an unaccompanied learner

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/hard-hitting-tv-road-safety-ad-not-about-retribution-1.3754069

So the Press Release from the RSA named the person who was driving unaccompanied, thereby making it personal.

There is absolutely NO reason to assume that today's lazy "cut and paste journalism" researched the ad that the RSA circulated in the press release and came up with the driver's name all by itself.

AndrewJRenko · 12-01-2019 6:46am

dense wrote: »

So the Press Release from the RSA named the person who was driving unaccompanied, thereby making it personal.

There is absolutely NO reason to assume that today's lazy "cut and paste journalism" researched the ad that the RSA circulated in the press release and came up with the driver's name all by itself.

There's absolutely no reason to assume the opposite either.

Little Less Conversation · 12-01-2019 1:26pm

martingriff wrote: »

I lived in the countryside and I didn't. If I needed to go some where I got a lift in or went when I could be accompanied if that meant going early then so be it and if I had to wait to get home also so be it. I had friends in college who spend whole days in as they had to wait. So you you didn't have to you chose to

I learned how to drive 14 years ago. There was a loophole that allowed learners to drive and nothing was done about it. I didn't have anyone to sit in with me. I didnt have parents to sit in with me and I didn't have older siblings to sit in with me. I wish I had the help but I didn't, it's why I relied on driving lessons. Had a friend who was stopped driving on their own and nothing was done about it. The fact is me and many more weren't privileged enough to have mammy and daddy to come with us.

Things are different these days though. I wouldn't get away with it today. It's still a stupid law though because the person accompanying the learners are only teaching them their own bad habits and can't really predict or stop an accident.

JP Liz V1 · 12-01-2019 6:16pm

I think the test price should be reduced and you should have to resit every few years, tons of full licence drivers also made bad mistakes on the roads

AndrewJRenko · 12-01-2019 6:21pm

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

you should have to resit every few years

Great idea, I wonder how close we are to doing this with technology - virtual reality or gaming tech to do a competency/reaction test in a simulator.

Pero_Bueno · 12-01-2019 6:22pm

I don't understand why learner drivers are even allowed drive a non dual controlled car without having passed a driving test!
In europe you need to PASS the test before doing that, only way you can be ever out on the road without a licence is in a dual controlled car getting a lesson.

Hope the driver of the car thinks long and hard about what she did.

brightspark · 12-01-2019 9:15pm

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I think the test price should be reduced and you should have to resit every few years, tons of full licence drivers also made bad mistakes on the roads

It's amazing how often this is suggested by those who haven't passed the test once!
(not saying you haven't, just that it seems to come up whenever the issue of learner permit holders wanting to drive unaccompanied)

It would require a significant number of driving testers to be employed (at a guess it would be something similar to the amount of people employed at NCT centres, but probably a lot more as testing would likely only take place during daylight hours)
More testing is unlikely to prevent full licence holders from making mistakes, a more effective strategy would be fitting monitors to all cars that immediately notify the authorities whenever you fail to stop at a stop sign, exceed the speed limit etc.

0cp71eyxkb94qf · 12-01-2019 9:39pm

Got to love all of the drivers in here who seem to have been gifted their driving skills at birth.

0cp71eyxkb94qf · 12-01-2019 9:40pm

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I think the test price should be reduced and you should have to resit every few years, tons of full licence drivers also made bad mistakes on the roads

When are you volunteering to resit your test then?

brightspark · 12-01-2019 9:45pm

London Poor Notch wrote: »

Got to love all of the drivers in here who seem to have been gifted their driving skills at birth.

Well I certainly wasn't one of them, it took me a lot of lessons, practice and a couple of attempts before I passed.

0cp71eyxkb94qf · 12-01-2019 9:50pm

brightspark wrote: »

Well I certainly wasn't one of them, it took me a lot of lessons, practice and a couple of attempts before I passed.

As I imagine it would all learner drivers. Most people here seem to want to ban learner drivers from learning the way they learned. The good old Irish "I'm alright so **** you" attitude springs to mind.

gctest50 · 12-01-2019 9:57pm

brightspark wrote: »

................................

a more effective strategy would be fitting monitors to all cars that immediately notify the authorities whenever you fail to stop at a stop sign, exceed the speed limit etc.

Even Vodafone are doing those now :

https://shop.v.vodafone.com/IE/V-Auto

80 euros to buy and 2.99 per month afterwards

brightspark · 12-01-2019 10:00pm

gctest50 wrote: »

Even Vodafone are doing those now :

https://shop.v.vodafone.com/IE/V-Auto

80 euros to buy and 2.99 per month afterwards

I wouldn't be surprised if at some stage it will become almost impossible to get insurance without having an approved device.

dense · 12-01-2019 10:05pm

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ten-complaints-received-over-crashed-lives-tv-advert-rsa-says-1.3755313?mode=amp

RSA receives 10 complaints about the ad.
I'd say that's unprecedented.

The RSA refused to confirm if it had communicated with the driver's family regarding the ad.

gctest50 · 12-01-2019 10:10pm

brightspark wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if at some stage it will become almost impossible to get insurance without having an approved device.

Be interesting to see, if you had a " T " plate on yer car ( t for tracker ) , would people give you a wider berth on the road because they know your careful driving would all be recorded for the last year or two

dense · 12-01-2019 10:13pm

gctest50 wrote: »

Be interesting to see, if you had a " T " plate on yer car ( t for tracker ) , would people give you a wider berth on the road because they know your careful driving would all be recorded for the last year or two

Might, until the novelty wears off.
Still, not a bad idea.

But you'd want to have some incentive to use and fork out for one, an insurance discount.

Stephen15 · 12-01-2019 10:40pm

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

I don't understand why learner drivers are even allowed drive a non dual controlled car without having passed a driving test!
In europe you need to PASS the test before doing that, only way you can be ever out on the road without a licence is in a dual controlled car getting a lesson.

Hope the driver of the car thinks long and hard about what she did.

That would be going over the top now I don't think that's the case in most European countries I believe in France for example you can nominate one sponsor but only that person can sit with you while learning also that person has to undergo some training to teach someone to drive.

If that was to become the case you'd basically have to buy your way through the test. Also there is no actual requirement for lessons to be done in a dual controlled vehicle. ADIs don't have to use a dual controlled car afaik but it's likely an insurance but not a legal requirement. The test can be done in non dual controlled cars and you can use your own car for lessons I have done it myself.

brightspark · 12-01-2019 11:06pm

dense wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ten-complaints-received-over-crashed-lives-tv-advert-rsa-says-1.3755313?mode=amp

RSA receives 10 complaints about the ad.
I'd say that's unprecedented.

The RSA refused to confirm if it had communicated with the driver's family regarding the ad.

The purpose of any advert is to raise awareness, they aren't the first to use a controversial advert and won't be the last.

The very fact this thread exists proves that they have increased awareness.

As to communicating with the drivers family? Was there any requirement? The advert is as far as I am aware factually correct. No doubt the advert is painful for them, but probably insignificant in comparison to the events that inspired the advert.

FishOnABike · 12-01-2019 11:53pm

Parker Clever Sextant wrote: »

Anyone from that era would be at least 55/56 years old now.

And probably driving for approx. 25 years more unless they are refused on medical grounds once they are over 70 which could be 15 years or thereabouts.

Corca Baiscinn · 13-01-2019 12:07am

magicbastarder wrote: »

those stats are meaningless without information about how many of those fatalities occurred while the learner was unaccompanied. it's quite possible the stats would show the system works - that ensuring learners are accompanied by a qualified driver - and that it keeps fatalities lower, rather than showing the converse which a trivial reading of the statistics might suggest.

But the article I linked to did give those stats re unaccompanied drivers. I was replying to Suicide Circus'es query and I started my reply by saying that the stats didn't seem to support the view that unaccompanied learners were responsible for a disproportionate number of accidents relative to their overall number on the road but that I agreed with the amendment nonetheless because it introduced consistency. & placed some responsibility on the car owner.

"She" is Moyagh Murdock and programme is Primetime
! She told the programme: “On average, twelve learners are involved in fatal crashes every year and ten are unaccompanied. That compares very unfavourably with our near neighbours in the north where in 2016 they reported no learner or unaccompanied learner involved in a fatal crash.

Those are stark figures – there’s not much difference in society between north and south but there is a different attitude towards unaccompanied learner drivers.
With 47 fatal crashes involving learner drivers in between 2014 and 2017 – 35 of these fatal crashes involved unaccompanied drivers – Murdock said “it really isn’t acceptable” for people to take the risk."

JP Liz V1 · 13-01-2019 12:08am

brightspark wrote: »

It's amazing how often this is suggested by those who haven't passed the test once!
(not saying you haven't, just that it seems to come up whenever the issue of learner permit holders wanting to drive unaccompanied)

It would require a significant number of driving testers to be employed (at a guess it would be something similar to the amount of people employed at NCT centres, but probably a lot more as testing would likely only take place during daylight hours)
More testing is unlikely to prevent full licence holders from making mistakes, a more effective strategy would be fitting monitors to all cars that immediately notify the authorities whenever you fail to stop at a stop sign, exceed the speed limit etc.

The is a good idea

What is the current test price?

I think if you fail and reapply within 3 to 6 months, the test should be 50% off or free

London Poor Notch wrote: »

When are you volunteering to resit your test then?

I will admit I have picked up bad habits but would resit again might need a pretest first

dense · 13-01-2019 12:54am

brightspark wrote: »

As to communicating with the drivers family? Was there any requirement?

No requirement, but they can't simultaneously be claiming to have "consulted with all parties concerned" if they didn't:

"Therefore in developing the campaign, the RSA consulted with all parties concerned,” the authority said."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ten-complaints-received-over-crashed-lives-tv-advert-rsa-says-1.3755313?mode=amp

appledrop · 13-01-2019 12:59am

I dont think this ad is a fair reflection on all L drivers.Yes a L driver crashed into car but how they died was a freak accident. Don't get me wrong very sad for family involved but don't think this happened solely because it was L driver. It was an unfortunate outcome due to flooded field.

The end of ad makes it seem that any L driver on road kills people. Thats not true + a lot of hypocrites on this thread. Years ago when I was learning to drive everyone drove un accompanied as driving test waiting times were 13-14 months. In rural areas like this there is no proper public transport. I'm not saying that was right + better the way you need lessons now etc but people shouldnt be so quick to judge.

dense · 13-01-2019 1:15am

appledrop wrote: »

I dont think this ad is a fair reflection on all L drivers.Yes a L driver crashed into car but how they died was a freak accident. Don't get me wrong very sad for family involved but don't think this happened solely because it was L driver. It was an unfortunate outcome due to flooded field.

I'm just wondering with all the stats available to Moyagh Murdock and the RSA why they waited until this crash to do anything about it?

Surely it was their responsibility as the foremost authority on road safety to have tightened up the legislation that might have prevented this accident long ago.

Mr E · 13-01-2019 1:41am

Surely if she was accompanied, the same accident would still have happened. The only difference is an extra witness and someone else who has to live with the trauma.

dense · 13-01-2019 1:48am

Mr E wrote: »

Surely if she was accompanied, the same accident would still have happened. The only difference is an extra witness and someone else who has to live with the trauma.

Well this is the while point it isn't it?

There's no guarantee that an accompanying driver (who has no obligation other than to be sober and a licence holder, they could have been getting some shut-eye after all) would have made any difference.

gctest50 · 13-01-2019 2:07am

dense wrote: »

Well this is the while point it isn't it?

There's no guarantee that an accompanying driver (who has no obligation other than to be sober and a licence holder, they could have been getting some shut-eye after all) would have made any difference.

Instead of accompanying driver, compulsory dash-cam and boxymo / telematics box would give better results

this sort of thing :

https://www.aig.ie/personal/car-insurance/boxclever
https://www.boxymo.ie/

User142 · 13-01-2019 2:35am

To all the posters that are dismissing the accompanying driver requirement as futile in preventing crashes.

Are you guys saying we copy the most of the rest of Europe and only allow learners on the road with instructors in dual controlled cars. Only allowing full licence holders on public roads without instructors.

Or are you guys suggesting we should scrap the requirement and officially just allow learners drive alone if they can pass the theory test because crashes just happen and there's nothing we can do really do to prevent them.

dense · 13-01-2019 2:47am

User142 wrote: »

To all the posters that are dismissing the accompanying driver requirement as futile in preventing crashes.

Are you guys saying we copy the most of the rest of Europe and only allow learners on the road with instructors in dual controlled cars. Only allowing full licence holders on public roads without instructors.

Or are you guys suggesting we should scrap the requirement and officially just allow learners drive alone if they can pass the theory test because crashes just happen and there's nothing we can do really do to prevent them.

If road safety is the priority it has to be the first of your options. A driving instructor as the accompanying driver.

Unless anyone wants to argue that the professional ability of a qualified driving instructor is equal to that of an amateur accompanying driver.

Which of your choices would you go for?

gctest50 · 13-01-2019 2:54am

User142 wrote: »

.................

Or are you guys suggesting we should scrap the requirement and officially just allow learners drive alone if they can pass the theory test because crashes just happen and there's nothing we can do really do to prevent them.

How about the happy balance :

X amount of hours accompanied

AND compulsory dashcam

AND compulsory telematics

( the system *should* spot a fair bit of the too-many-sudden-stops-to-be-healthy etc )

re: dashcam etc, truck drivers have to make sure their tacho is in order before they set off ........ so stop whinging

User142 · 13-01-2019 2:58am

dense wrote: »

If road safety is the priority it has to be the first of your options. A driving instructor as the accompanying driver.

Unless anyone wants to argue that the professional ability of a qualified driving instructor is equal to that of an amateur accompanying driver.

Which of your choices would you go for?

I don't consider the accompanying driver requirement completely futile in preventing crashes. So ideally just enforce the system we have now. Its a nice compromise between the two extremes.

I'd rather we seriously reduced the wait time for tests and maybe consider removing the 6 month wait requirement before one can apply for the test. That needs sorting out so that people who deserve full licences can quickly obtain them.

dense · 13-01-2019 3:12am

gctest50 wrote: »

How about the happy balance :

X amount of hours accompanied

AND compulsory dashcam

AND compulsory telematics

( the system *should* spot a fair bit of the too-many-sudden-stops-to-be-healthy etc )

re: dashcam etc, truck drivers have to make sure their tacho is in order before they set off ........ so stop whinging

But who seriously wants their every move remotely sensed?

Can I not go for a drive on my own in my own car on roads that my taxes pay to provide without big brother analysing my every move and location?

1984 was fiction, not an instruction manual.

dense · 13-01-2019 3:17am

User142 wrote: »

I don't consider the accompanying driver requirement completely futile in preventing crashes.

So you weren't in favour of any of the two options you were offering.

Do you think that it would NOT be safer to have a trained professional instructor as an accompanying driver instead of an amateur?

If we're going to do this thing right there's no point in having amateurs as accompanying drivers and saying their driving skills are equal to those of a qualified instructor.

These were your options which you've now side stepped.

divillybit · 13-01-2019 3:30am

I think trackers in cars are a great job and Im surprised its not an optional extra in new cars these days. Its a great way to keep manners on drivers.

User142 · 13-01-2019 3:37am

dense wrote: »

So you weren't in favour of any of the two options you were offering.

Yes? I'm in favour of the current system. My question was for those that don't.

I was interested to see if the people who are basically saying the accompanying driver requirement of the current system is rubbish are actually annoyed restrictions on learners dont go far enough. Or they believe crashes happen irregardless of whether there's a full licence holder passenger so the requirement should just be scrapped.

User142 · 13-01-2019 3:46am

dense wrote: »

1.Do you think that it would NOT be safer to have a trained professional instructor as an accompanying driver instead of an amateur?

2.If we're going to do this thing right there's no point in having amateurs as accompanying drivers and saying their driving skills are equal to those of a qualified instructor.

3.These were your options which you've now side stepped.

1.I do. If you want to push for those requirements you are free to. I'm not going to be resisting it but getting that through the Dail would be very tough.

2.No ones saying that.

3.I like the current system so why would I need to support an alternative. I obviously don't support removing the restriction.

AndrewJRenko · 13-01-2019 8:06am

dense wrote: »

But who seriously wants their every move remotely sensed?

Can I not go for a drive on my own in my own car on roads that my taxes pay to provide without big brother analysing my every move and location?

1984 was fiction, not an instruction manual.

What have taxes got to do with this safety issue? For the record, roads are funded from central government funds. Motorists pay nothing near the costs of the harm done by their engine.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cars-air-pollution-cost-nhs-vans-vehicles-health-bills-lung-disease-a8384806.html

But either way, what's it got to do with this issue?

FishOnABike · 13-01-2019 8:48am

margo321 wrote: »

It was a terrible accident but i feel bad for the girl. driving test a bit of a joke here with waiting lists and high failing rate. roads i shovking condition. what is percentage of learner drivers causing accidents. Ad looks like an eye for an eye, he will be happy if girl kills herself.

Not sure if that information is available. The closest I've found is that learner drivers make up approx. 9% of drivers and are involved in 5.4% of fatal road traffic incidents. The % they are responsible for would be expected to be less than that again.

Needles73 · 13-01-2019 8:51am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What have taxes got to do with this safety issue? For the record, roads are funded from central government funds. Motorists pay nothing near the costs of the harm done by their engine.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cars-air-pollution-cost-nhs-vans-vehicles-health-bills-lung-disease-a8384806.html

But either way, what's it got to do with this issue?

Likewise whats London air quality report got to do with anything ?
Virtually all tax collected goes to central government before being dustributed so what’s that got to do with anything ?
Irish motorist contributes over €5 billion per year in tax which does cover the financial costs (even using the numbers in uk report). But then you’ll come back and say it’s not a financial cost.....
........anyways the point is some posters think we should go down the road of enforced tracking/telemetry in every car. This cost for the equipment and monitoring would have to be paid for and ultimately it’s another form of tax. That’s the point.

FishOnABike · 13-01-2019 9:26am

divillybit wrote: »

I think trackers in cars are a great job and Im surprised its not an optional extra in new cars these days. Its a great way to keep manners on drivers.

Unless there was a significant incentive I couldn't see it it being a widely requested option.

It could identify issues such as excessive or persistent speeding or hard braking but would not identify arguably more significant issues such as inattentiveness, lack of observation, use of indicators, lane discipline, cutting corners, taking corners wide, driving on the wrong side of the road, overtaking when there is not a sufficient clear view of the road ahead, etc.

appledrop · 13-01-2019 9:42am

FishOnABike wrote: »

Not sure if that information is available. The closest I've found is that learner drivers make up approx. 9% of drivers and are involved in 5.4% of fatal road traffic incidents. The % they are responsible for would be expected to be less than that again.

This is why I have an issue with the ad. It's taking a very sad but freak accident + using it to try and say ah all L drivers are a menace on road. I have no problem with ads for drink driving as the stats back it up that it causes crashes in which fatalities occur.

magicbastarder · 13-01-2019 10:10am

Mr E wrote: »

Surely if she was accompanied, the same accident would still have happened. The only difference is an extra witness and someone else who has to live with the trauma.

speculating on this particular instance as to whether the accident would or wouldn't have happened if there had been a qualified driver in the car is futile. it can be nothing more than speculation.

however, i'd be fairly confident in assuming there are other instances of solo learner drivers who lost control, leading to fatalities, where the difference would have been a qualified driver who was able to tell them to slow down, or who might have known the road better, etc.
needless to say, i'm not going to point to specific instances where i would assert that it would have made a difference.

AndrewJRenko · 13-01-2019 10:45am

Needles73 wrote: »

Likewise whats London air quality report got to do with anything ?
Virtually all tax collected goes to central government before being dustributed so what’s that got to do with anything ?
Irish motorist contributes over €5 billion per year in tax which does cover the financial costs (even using the numbers in uk report). But then you’ll come back and say it’s not a financial cost.....
........anyways the point is some posters think we should go down the road of enforced tracking/telemetry in every car. This cost for the equipment and monitoring would have to be paid for and ultimately it’s another form of tax. That’s the point.

Do you think that cars in Ireland pollute differently to cars in the UK? The Irish motorist 'contributes' nothing, and is a huge drain on society. Motorists pay some of the costs of providing road infrastructure, providing the Garda traffic unit, providing the RSA, providing vast amounts of public space for storage of private property (parking), but come nowhere near paying the real cost of motoring. They don't pay for their share of the 1500+ premature deaths each year due to poor air quality.

When are motorists going to start paying their own way?

But regardless, what's it got to do an RSA advert anyway? On the telemetry question, if motorists don't want mandatory equipment, then maybe motorists need to find other ways to stop killing 2 or 3 people each week.

brightspark · 13-01-2019 11:18am

FishOnABike wrote: »

Not sure if that information is available. The closest I've found is that learner drivers make up approx. 9% of drivers and are involved in 5.4% of fatal road traffic incidents. The % they are responsible for would be expected to be less than that again.

The problem with that statistic is it doesn't reflect the fact that those on learner permits would be driving much less than the average driver.

Stephen15 · 13-01-2019 11:23am

More people die falling down the stairs than in car accidents. Most people I know are sick and tired of health and safety legislation inferring in their daily lives whether it be at work, during leisure time or indeed on the roads.

Wanderer78 · 13-01-2019 11:26am

Stephen15 wrote: »

More people die falling down the stairs than in car accidents. Most people I know are sick and tired of health and safety legislation inferring in their daily lives whether it be at work, during leisure time or indeed on the roads.

be interesting to see this statistic in the flesh!

RSA ad on unaccompanied L drivers

Comments