Originally Posted by BarryD2
It's not a question of popularity. Irish people have always cast a cold eye on matters of the law, a sceptical eye. If we perceive that legislation is appropriate, then it's broadly observed. If people think any part of legislation is impractical or unnecessary, then it's more inclined to be ignored. And particularly it'll be ignored if the chances of being caught are limited.
I understand why the RSA/ Minister Ross bring in ever tighter legislation. They subscribe to the idea that they must make continuous improvements in order to justify their remits. The danger with this approach though is that you end up disrupting the greater proportion of the population for the sake of catching the few, who often don't give a toss anyway about licences, tax, insurance or alcohol intake. The law of diminishing returns sets in and otherwise law abiding people come to consider the law an ass.
For the record and over three decades ago, I learnt to drive completely unaccompanied, no lessons - but I did display L plates then. Got lots of experience and passed the test readily. I look at many drivers now, many of who have had the whole remit of lessons and they can't even fecking reverse park a car properly.
Broadly agree with you. In the Clancy case the L driver in question only had 9 of the 12 compulsory lessons done. In some of the other media highlighted L driver accidents like the St Anne's Park tragedy we are looking at drivers going at psychotic speeds in inappropriate areas. These are major incidents of piss taking and flouting of respect for the road. With people acting well outside the bounds of common sense and decency.
Much like legislation around drugs, I'm not a fan of involving the families of those who have suffered tragedies in making legislation. It leads to emotion over reason and the inability for people to contribute to the debate based on facts and logic. It's impossible to get a hearing in when confronted with someone who has been deeply traumatised. All respect due to the Clancy lad too, I really mean that - horrible horrible scenario.
As far as this amendment is concerned, it's a case of tarring all learners with one brush while the testing system remains an unaccountable joke with no record of what happens during it which leaves people doubting its validity while Shane Ross soaks up media glory. The process needs serious reform and investment in its infrastructure. The waiting lists are insane and crippling.
I'd like to see some sort of staggered or continuous assessment of Learner drivers, that really interrogates their ability to drive in all conditions rather than a bull**** jaunt around a Finglas housing estate and fifteen minute quick first impression of a nervous person.
Where have most accidents with learners happened? Do we have this information? The RSA could do with sorting out the lunatic speed limits on 90% of country roads too which seem to bear no relationship to the actual reality of some of them. I'm sure we've all come across these 80k on a boreen monstrosities that seem to have been set by someone on planet Mars that has never looked at the damn road. Is this because the state is trying to lie to itself about the quality of some of the road network while cutting back on funding?
I'm a learner driver and was pulled at a check point coming into Carlow today. Tax and insurance all grand. L plates up. He basically informed me about the amendment and let me on. I think I'd have been fecked had the plates been down. That'd just been totally pisstaking.
It seems a lot of the car seizures that are happening, much like accidents involving L drivers - are happening to people who are really really pushing the limits of the road. Like 172 kph on a midlands motorway. 115 kph on a 50k stretch. I mean, those are behaviours well outside the bounds of just being a learner driver and exhibit an almost heinous disregard for the safety of others. To put it simply down to them being learners is wrong.