RSA ad on unaccompanied L drivers

lbc2019 wrote: »

If they had a blow out the velocity they were hit at would allow nil reaction time

What blow out? Why are you making sh1t up to suit your own agenda.

lbc2019 wrote: »

Sorry I mixed up the two stories the motorcycle I thought had a blowout.

Don’t come at me with Such an accusatory tone

No problem. We can all make mistakes

I’m out.

tipperary wrote: »

Having a blowout is not premeditated breaking of the law. A learner driver driving unaccompanied is. Drink driving is. Speeding is. Doing these things can cause crashes, which can result in injury and death.
If it was an ad about people being killed by speed or drink driving would there be as much sympathy for the person at fault?

I was responding to a post where the poster stated that anyone who kills another in a road accident should be charged with manslaughter. Was pointing out a poor word choice.

My personal take on this scenario is that the father and husband of the victims has done the country a service by lobbying the government to introduce the new law. Unaccompanied learner drivers have no place on the road. It would be great to get some enforcement of this too. Enforcement of road traffic laws in this country is pitiful. A lot of people know some of their driving behaviour is wrong, risky and sometimes illegal but the lack of enforcement means there is no incentive to change for many. I was caught speeding once only in my driving career to date and my attitude to speed has changed ever since. It does work and enforment is a deterrent. I wouldn't hold my breath on the new law making much difference and I'd wager that conviction rates will be negligible. Not because learners will stop driving unaccompanied but because detection will be low.

As for the TV ad I think it is unwarranted. Yes this man's life has been left with the indelible mark of the unecessary death of his wife and daughter but I don't think making TV like this is going to heal his wounds. I heard similar messages from him on the radio and it smacks of resentment. This is understandable under the circumstances but I think he now needs to focus his efforts on getting some closure on this tragedy. He can be proud of what he has achieved legislatively and it is a fitting tribute to his deceased family members.

I'm a bit taken aback by the reaction of some posters here towards the girl who caused the accident. She now has a life sentence of her own knowing that an irresponsible decision by her to drive unaccompanied lead to her causing a road collision that killed for neighbours. That coupled with a criminal record and a 15 year driving ban. I don't think a custodial sentence would have achieved anything here, she is highly unlikely to reoffend, didn't have a history of crime and isn't a danger to society at large. Despite what some posters here may say this girl too deserves help and some semblance of sympathy. Life will not be easy for her either. A few here should remember we were all young once and none of us are infallible.

pablo128 wrote: »

The junction in question is a sharp left hand bend which she took too fast and veered onto the wrong side of the road. An experienced accompanying driver would have told her to slow down on approach.

Ideally, but realistically how often do accompanying passengers intervene in time?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I reckon that much of the opposition to the ad is a direct result of it's effectiveness - it is actually forcing people to think and face up to their responsibilities, and many don't like that.

Theres defintely something in this. Also there was some push back in the media saying it was "an attack on people in rural Ireland" :rolleyes: because now parents will have to fulfill their legal obligations to supervise a learner driver

TheChizler wrote: »

Ideally, but realistically how often do accompanying passengers intervene in time?

IMO the whole supervision of learner drivers is not always about intervening in a split second to prevent an accident. It is more about correcting bad driving behaviour before it even gets to the stage of ending up in an accident. In this case the girl went way too wide taking a turn off a yield sign. When I supervised a learner driver they had the exact same bad habit of encroaching onto the wrong side of the road, it was only momentarily but enough to cause a tragedy like this one. Because the learner had supervision I could correct their mistakes but if they had been constantly driving alone then they would never even have known they were making potentially costly mistakes in the first place.

Doing a theory test and 12 lessons does not make a competent driver. Learning from and eliminating mistakes is what will make them competent. If they don't have an experienced driver to point out where they are going wrong then they don't properly learn about road craft and they are then liable to make mistakes that can end with serious consequences like this one.

dense wrote: »

Do you have a link to the accompanying drivers responsibilities as outlined in legislation?

What do you think they are there for because it's not to just sit there and lay back.

A driver who is accompanying the learner can't have taken alcohol either.

They have it that the more experienced person is there to guide.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Theres defintely something in this. Also there was some push back in the media saying it was "an attack on people in rural Ireland" :rolleyes: because now parents will have to fulfill their legal obligations to supervise a learner driver



IMO the whole supervision of learner drivers is not always about intervening in a split second to prevent an accident. It is more about correcting bad driving behaviour before it even gets to the stage of ending up in an accident. In this case the girl went way too wide taking a turn off a yield sign. When I supervised a learner driver they had the exact same bad habit of encroaching onto the wrong side of the road, it was only momentarily but enough to cause a tragedy like this one. Because the learner had supervision I could correct their mistakes but if they had been constantly driving alone then they would never even have known they were making potentially costly mistakes in the first place.

Doing a theory test and 12 lessons does not make a competent driver. Learning from and eliminating mistakes is what will make them competent. If they don't have an experienced driver to point out where they are going wrong then they don't properly learn about road craft and they are then liable to make mistakes that can end with serious consequences like this one.

That's absolutely what should happen and if everyone did that the roads would be much safer places, but quite often the passenger won't even be paying attention never mind offering appropriate advice.

I wonder if instead of the law punishing people who let their cars be driven unaccompanied would it have been better to legally put some of the responsibility on the passenger. They are supposed to be supervising at all, they should be actively monitoring the driver and correcting poor driving.

I suppose the effect would be that few people would want to accompany learners out of fear of being prosecuted in the event of an accident, and we end up with the same arguments against it, learners not getting opportunities to practice etc.

At a minimum I feel passengers should be subject to the same rules regarding mobile phone usage and alcohol impairment when they're supervising as when they're driving, so at least they're available to supervise mentally. That could have a much more positive effect than punishment after the fact.

dense wrote: »

I know the theory behind it, but to bring this to its logical conclusion, if an accompanying driver is now going to be blamed for failing to prevent an accident, why would anyone volunteer to do it?

If people can't find someone to volunteer to supervise them, they can pay a driving instructor to teach and supervise them until they're able to pass the test. Plenty of people do it this way, it's not the end of the world.

magicbastarder wrote: »

funny enough, a colleague of my wife's was raging, he got caught driving unaccompanied over christmas. the penalty now includes the car owner, doesn't it? or am i imagining that?

The new law got enacted at midnight on the 21st December so if after that then yeah you would presume they are done. However the IT article I read said the car owner only faces a fine, it didnt mention any penalty points for allowing the learner to drive alone. Which in a way isnt all that much of a deterrent tbh, some people will just continue on as normal and suck up the fine if caught. The law does give the power for the car to be seized from the learner but presumably it it then just handed back to the owner when the fine is paid.

TheChizler wrote: »

That's absolutely what should happen and if everyone did that the roads would be much safer places, but quite often the passenger won't even be paying attention never mind offering appropriate advice.

I wonder if instead of the law punishing people who let their cars be driven unaccompanied would it have been better to legally put some of the responsibility on the passenger. They are supposed to be supervising at all, they should be actively monitoring the driver and correcting poor driving.

I suppose the effect would be that few people would want to accompany learners out of fear of being prosecuted in the event of an accident, and we end up with the same arguments against it, learners not getting opportunities to practice etc.

At a minimum I feel passengers should be subject to the same rules regarding mobile phone usage and alcohol impairment when they're supervising as when they're driving, so at least they're available to supervise mentally. That could have a much more positive effect than punishment after the fact.

In an ideal world for sure but Id imagine putting responsibility on the passenger could end up in all kinds of messy legal argument in the event of an accident. I do agree that it needs to be tackled but the question is how to do it effectively, how is blame apportioned between driver & passenger. It could quickly decsend into a he said, she said situation with no way to resolve it.

eagle eye wrote: »

It won't because it's not on Netflix or Amazon Prime or the BBC or Sky/BT sports.
It's on RTE which feck all young people watch.

Maybe their parents will think twice before lending them the car to drive unsupervised.

lbc2019 wrote: »

Amazing, but she kills someone and is convicted and they want it brushed under the carpet.

Anyone here have a relative/friend killed in an RTI?

Yes, a friend was killed by an unlicensed unaccompanied 'learner' driving on completely bald tyres in the wet, overtook on a bend and lost control. £500 fine was the price of a life.

Little Less Conversation wrote: »

It was an accident. She didn't set out to kill them.

Drink drivers don't set off to kill anyone, either... but we rightly don't have people on here making ridiculous excuses for them when they do kill someone.

tipperary wrote: »

Having a blowout is not premeditated breaking of the law.

No but it's almost always caused by the negligence of the driver to ensure their tyres are in a safe condition and properly inflated (which is breaking the law)

dense wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I reckon that much of the opposition to the ad is a direct result of it's effectiveness - it is actually forcing people to think and face up to their responsibilities, and many don't like that.

I would say anyone opposing it is simply cognisant of human error. No one can ever say they won't ever make a mistake driving, yourself included.
The majority by your reckoning do face up to their responsibilities each day and do not cause accidents collisions or whatever you want to call them.

I make mistakes every time I drive. I drive in a way that ensures these mistakes don't kill me or anyone else.

Driving unaccompanied without a licence is not 'human error'.