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

L drivers, cars taken

1235714

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭UrbanFret


    lbc2019 wrote: »
    I live it the country I lived in the countryside and I got on fine without a car! Imagine having to walk to a bus!

    How far is the bus stop from your house? Nearest one to me is 4 miles away?


  • Registered Users Posts: 343 ✭✭emilymemily


    Naos wrote: »
    While driving unaccompanied may be deemed low in terms of level of criminality, the potential outcome of such an action would be deemed of high risk as an accident owing to lack of experience could lead to multiple fatalities.

    New drivers / learners should not be driving unaccompanied.

    Having a full license doesnt equate to experience. If anything we'll have more full licensed drivers with the experience of learner driver's and I cant see how thats any better?

    A learner driver is required to have an L plate, this alerts other road users that the driver is inexperienced and to take extra care.
    When I start driving, I will have a big gap between getting my learners permit and getting my full license, I will not have driven my car within this time as I dont have anybody to accompany me, this means that when I do start driving on the roads not only will I be as inexperienced as a learner driver, it will have been months, if not a year since finishing my driving lessons - surely that's not a safer alternative?


  • Registered Users Posts: 343 ✭✭emilymemily


    lbc2019 wrote: »
    I live it the country I lived in the countryside and I got on fine without a car! Imagine having to walk to a bus!

    I lived in the country too, there was no bus route in my area, they were cut during the recession. The closest bus stop was an hour and a half walk and the bus only stopped twice a day, one at 7.30 am going into town, a second coming back 6.30 pm.
    Walking dark country roads in the Winter is hardly a safer alternative?


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,590 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    I lived in the country too, there was no bus route in my area, they were cut during the recession. The closest bus stop was an hour and a half walk and the bus only stopped twice a day, one at 7.30 am going into town, a second coming back 6.30 pm. Walking dark country roads in the Winter is hardly a safer alternative?


    Relocate nearer to work or college? Lack of convenience is no excuse.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,364 Mod ✭✭✭✭RacoonQueen


    Anthonylfc wrote: »
    More paperwork for gards

    Far far worse going on in the streets than this but they do nothing

    This is literally their job in this unit.

    https://www.garda.ie/en/Roads-Policing/

    But you keep driving around unaccompanied and hopefully they'll catch you too. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 343 ✭✭emilymemily


    Relocate nearer to work or college? Lack of convenience is no excuse.

    No but lack of money is, rent is shockingly high, I had no other option but remain living with my parents well into my late 20's. Relocation isnt an option for everyone.

    And just to add, I have work colleagues travelling to Dublin from the north every single day as they cant afford the rent in the republic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭TCM


    It's very simple. In other countries you enroll in a school of motoring, take theory and driving lessons, take a theory and driving test and once you pass that, you can drive. As for finance, well, you want it, you pay for it. Works for hundreds of millions of people all over Europe. The idea is, either you have a license and you can drive, or you don't and you can't. Absolutely nothing difficult about it.


    Succinctly put.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    It's very simple. In other countries you enroll in a school of motoring, take theory and driving lessons, take a theory and driving test and once you pass that, you can drive. As for finance, well, you want it, you pay for it.
    Works for hundreds of millions of people all over Europe.
    The idea is, either you have a license and you can drive, or you don't and you can't.
    Absolutely nothing difficult about it.

    I know that where I come from we didn't need insurance, the driving school was insured and we drove in their cars and passed the test in the car we learned in. Because there was no need for own car, pay insurance and tax it was actually cheaper than in Ireland despite paying for driving lessons.

    I actually think it is harder for people in Ireland. The population density is low and even in towns most live in houses so public transport is complete rubbish. But solution would be proper lessons that go for couple of months and a test and not this system of letting people on the road without proper supervision.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,355 ✭✭✭Jim Gazebo


    I know driving with an accompanied fully licenced family member is a great idea in theory.on paper it looks great. But at the end of the day, what the #&*@ are they going to do if the learner makes a fatal error on a road? Nothing, what can they do?

    If it goes wrong it will be too late. You might reduce a little of the probability but not much, but you certainly cannot reduce the consequences.

    Driving is an occupational hazard of life and until you take a hard stance of limiting car speeds etc etc then nothing will change in terms of accidents.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,590 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    No but lack of money is, rent is shockingly high, I had no other option but remain living with my parents well into my late 20's. Relocation isnt an option for everyone.


    Lots of young people face the same dilemma. They get a part time job and house share.

    It can be done.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭Isambard


    Jim Gazebo wrote: »
    I know driving with an accompanied fully licenced family member is a great idea in theory.on paper it looks great. But at the end of the day, what the #&*@ are they going to do if the learner makes a fatal error on a road? Nothing, what can they do?

    If it goes wrong it will be too late. You might reduce a little of the probability but not much, but you certainly cannot reduce the consequences.

    Driving is an occupational hazard of life and until you take a hard stance of limiting car speeds etc etc then nothing will change in terms of accidents.

    the idea is that the accompanying qualified driver can stop the learner from getting into dangerous situations with suitable advice. He/she will know when the speed is inapproriate etc .


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,590 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    Jim Gazebo wrote: »
    I know driving with an accompanied fully licenced family member is a great idea in theory.on paper it looks great. But at the end of the day, what the #&*@ are they going to do if the learner makes a fatal error on a road? Nothing, what can they do?

    If it goes wrong it will be too late. You might reduce a little of the probability but not much, but you certainly cannot reduce the consequences.

    Driving is an occupational hazard of life and until you take a hard stance of limiting car speeds etc etc then nothing will change in terms of accidents.

    I think it's actually a concession - you are right a car isn't dual control. A qualified and experienced driver will be able to offer advice though.

    In other counties it isn't allowed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,635 ✭✭✭dennyk


    Jim Gazebo wrote: »
    I know driving with an accompanied fully licenced family member is a great idea in theory.on paper it looks great. But at the end of the day, what the #&*@ are they going to do if the learner makes a fatal error on a road? Nothing, what can they do?

    It's not about the accompanying licensed driver heroically grabbing the wheel every time the learner makes a mistake, it's really about having a (presumably) older and more responsible adult in the car with them, because teenagers, by and large, are not the brightest bunch and are prone to making terrible decisions. A teen driving around by himself or with a bunch of similarly-aged mates might be tempted to do something stupid on the road to show off and end up getting himself or someone else killed, but it's a lot less likely to happen if he's driving around with a parent or other older relative. There is a guidance factor as well, especially in the cases of a sponsor helping a learner practice between their lessons and such, but the main thing is making it more likely that there's at least one person in the car who isn't a foolish teenager.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    Having a full license doesnt equate to experience. If anything we'll have more full licensed drivers with the experience of learner driver's and I cant see how thats any better?

    A learner driver is required to have an L plate, this alerts other road users that the driver is inexperienced and to take extra care.
    When I start driving, I will have a big gap between getting my learners permit and getting my full license, I will not have driven my car within this time as I dont have anybody to accompany me, this means that when I do start driving on the roads not only will I be as inexperienced as a learner driver, it will have been months, if not a year since finishing my driving lessons - surely that's not a safer alternative?

    I believe you are quite right. The one and ultimately only way to learn to drive safely is to drive. To take responsibility for yourself and other road users, nobody holding your hand. There needs to be a balance in all these matters and I think once a learner has done their 12 lessons, is insured and taxed, there should be a means to allow them to get that experience some way.

    Our daughter went through the system a couple of years ago. She didn't drive unaccompanied as we could facilitate her. She passed her test on the third attempt but I can honestly say that she was no safer nor no more dangerous a driver than when she completed her lessons and sat the first test.

    People will say, 'well she must have been safer after third test, otherwise she wouldn't have failed'. But that's not how it works - she failed due to clocking up minor 'faults' and lack of confidence. Nothing dangerous. Driving safely is an attitude of mind as much as anything and her approach was the same at first test as now after nearly 2 years driving.

    What would have helped though is experience in driving unaccompanied. Getting confidence.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭Isambard


    no you're wrong, before you start accumulating experience, you need to show you have basic competence. That's why you have N plates as you gain confidence.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,590 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    ....What would have helped though is experience in driving unaccompanied. Getting confidence.

    The only issue is that it's illegal to do so, and rightly so.

    Until such time as the learner has demonstrated their ability and passed the driving test they have no right nor qualification to drive solo.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,358 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    Isambard wrote: »
    no you're wrong, before you start accumulating experience, you need to show you have basic competence. That's why you have N plates as you gain confidence.

    The N-Plate has little to do with confidence. It just makes novices a target for shít driving around them, similar to learner drivers. I haven't had to contend with the same arrogance from other drivers since taking mine off. It's very annoying having to contend with the lower points threshold too. I was basically being told, yes, you passed the test, but you're just an unaccompanied learner for the next 2 years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 512 ✭✭✭dvdman1


    I think the driving test should be replaced by 40 or 50 incremental lessons spread over 9 months+
    If you get stuck on number 30 for instance you dont get to do lesson 31 until you've passed that 30th lesson.
    The idea of one 30-40min test isnt great its impossible to cover much, 40 or 50 small tests would be better.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    Isambard wrote: »
    no you're wrong, before you start accumulating experience, you need to show you have basic competence. That's why you have N plates as you gain confidence.

    Confidence, competence, experience - all these things are linked and make for safer roads. The more driving a person learning to drive does, the more confidence, competence & experience they gain. Therefore any legislation which reduces the capacity for people to drive and thus gain confidence, competence & experience is poor legislation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    Confidence, competence, experience - all these things are linked and make for safer roads. The more driving a person learning to drive does, the more confidence, competence & experience they gain. Therefore any legislation which reduces the capacity for people to drive and thus gain confidence, competence & experience is poor legislation.
    And they can gain that after they pass basic test but not when you don't know if they are even able to keep the car straight on the road.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 916 ✭✭✭1hnr79jr65


    I am glad to see more learner cars taken off the road where they do not follow laws. And hopefully we will see those who allow learners to drive unaccompanied prosecuted soon.

    People need to wake up to their responsibilities when in control of a vehicle, they are not just responsible for their own safety but the safety of other road users and pedestrians and if they can't or won't follow the law in this regard then they do not deserve to be allowed to drive.


  • Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭pale rider


    My children both learned to drive but never drove the car whilst unaccompanied, the insurance docs made it clear they were covered only whilst accompanied.

    It was not an inconvenience, they understood the rules and abided by them.

    I don't know what the fuss is about, do not learn to drive if unaccompanied, the dangers to the individual and other road users are too serious, never mind the fact that your insurance may be invalid.

    I'm all for the Clancy amendment, anything to make the roads safer.


  • Posts: 0 Brady Stale Finch


    The N-Plate has little to do with confidence. It just makes novices a target for shdriving around them, similar to learner drivers. I haven't had to contend with the same arrogance from other drivers since taking mine off.
    I'd agree. When I started lessons in the GFs car she would notice a considerable change in the attitude of other drivers around her. It took a month or two for her to realise that it was the L-plate which was causing all the animosity......People not letting her out/speeding up to cut her off, others forcing their way out from side roads when unsafe so as not to get stuck behind a learner, that sort of thing.

    I recently bought a much nicer car than the 1.1L car I used to get my licence and there is a noticeable difference in the "fancy" car compared to the banger. I don't think I've been beeped once since I bought the nicer car.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭ Marina Young Lodging


    pale rider wrote: »
    I don't know what the fuss is about

    Many of the aggrieved people feel an entitlement to do as they please if they have invested money into the process irrespective of the legislation at hand.

    Like yourself i am supportive of the new 'Clancy amendment'


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,590 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    Confidence, competence, experience - all these things are linked and make for safer roads. The more driving a person learning to drive does, the more confidence, competence & experience they gain. Therefore any legislation which reduces the capacity for people to drive and thus gain confidence, competence & experience is poor legislation.

    The Clancy amendment did nothing to reduce a learners ability to drive or gain experience driving. They can do so when accompanied by a suitably qualified passenger.

    All it did was to give the Gardai additional powers to deal with L drivers doing so solo - something that was already illegal.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭ Marina Young Lodging


    The Clancy amendment did nothing to reduce a learners ability to drive or gain experience driving. They can do so when accompanied by a suitably qualified passenger.

    All it did was to give the Gardai additional powers to deal with L drivers doing so solo - something that was already illegal.

    If anything i think the amendment has driven up test applications.


  • Registered Users Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kazamo


    Just a pity Shane Ross started with a good idea but wasted an opportunity to really improve road safety.

    Instead of targeting one group, apply the same principle to all.

    Driving using a mobile phone......confiscate the car and hefty fine
    Speeding more than 20km above limit.....confiscate the car and hefty fine
    Park dangerously outside shop and stick on the hazard lights....confiscate and fine

    Those are just three examples of dangerous driving behaviour that we all see on a daily basis. But it will never happen as the culprits have a big enough voice unlike the L drivers.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,590 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    If anything i think the amendment has driven up test applications.

    Possibly. I think L drivers didn't bother doing the test up to now as they didn't have to.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭ Marina Young Lodging


    Possibly. I think L drivers didn't bother doing the test up to now as they didn't have to.

    There was a similar spike at the end of 2007 when the provisional licence was abolished and replaced with a learner permit due to the ending of being allowed to drive unaccompanied on a second provisional licence.

    The biggest issue is the thousands endlessly applying for the test and not showing up yet can still renew the learner permit, the RSA has planned a crackdown to stop it last year but alas nothing has yet happened.

    The only way a third or subsequent permit should be issued is upon failing a test or on genuine medical grounds such as those that are part of the NDLS application declaration.

    Insurers are another crowd who don’t keep on top of it all, a lot of them don’t ask for a copy of the licence/permit.

    Ireland is fairly backwards.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭Isambard


    my guess is there are loads of middle aged and a bit older drivers who have never taken a test and who abandoned their L plates years ago. In a country area like ours, I'd say they will get away with it forever , unless there's an incident.


Advertisement