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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

RSA ad on unaccompanied L drivers

1…67891012»

Comments

  • #552
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    But the owner could lie and say the learner didn't have permission effectively feeding them to the wolves even if they gave permission. Or they could say to the learner you drive but if you get caught your on your own.


    But it was them who set off alone, knowing they would be would be thrown to the wolves

    They would deserve every bit of what they get


  • #553
    ayux4rj6zql2ph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭ayux4rj6zql2ph


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    I don't understand why people book a test and then not bother showing as they paid €85 for it. Surely they should just do it and if on the off chance they pass they could get a full licence as an unintended consequence.

    Some will say they haven’t a hope, the system is rigged or something similar. Look at the guy in Cork who has attempted it 15 times and even brought the RSA to court.


  • #554
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    gctest50 wrote: »
    But it was them who set off alone, knowing they would be would be thrown to the wolves

    They would deserve every bit of what they get

    Yes I'm not denying that. I'm talking about the law confiscating vehicles being driven by learners but not owned by the learner. No one is going to own up to saying they gave someone permission to drive their if it's going to involve getting their car confiscated or fined etc.


  • #555
    ayux4rj6zql2ph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭ayux4rj6zql2ph


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Yes I'm not denying that. I'm talking about the law confiscating vehicles being driven by learners but not owned by the learner. No one is going to own up to saying they gave someone permission to drive their if it's going to involve getting their car confiscated or fined etc.

    If the car is registered to someone else they either fess up to handing it over or the driver is done for TWOC


  • #556
    brightspark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,637 ✭✭✭brightspark


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Yes I'm not denying that. I'm talking about the law confiscating vehicles being driven by learners but not owned by the learner. No one is going to own up to saying they gave someone permission to drive their if it's going to involve getting their car confiscated or fined etc.

    The alternative is to have the person charged with theft!


  • #557
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    brightspark wrote: »
    The alternative is to have the person charged with theft!

    I'm sure people would do that. It's just creating more your word v my word scenario. It's ridiculous unenforceable law.


  • #558
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    brightspark wrote: »
    The alternative is to have the person charged with theft!

    DOAD

    Driving Without Accompanying Driver


  • #559
    RacoonQueen
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,366 Mod ✭✭✭✭RacoonQueen


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    I don't understand why people book a test and then not bother showing as they paid €85 for it. Surely they should just do it and if on the off chance they pass they could get a full licence as an unintended consequence.

    Yeah it's a bit stupid €85 + whatever a learner permit renewal is, every two (?) years, versus, €85 + cost of full licence. Then just renewal cost every ten years.


  • #560
    ayux4rj6zql2ph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭ayux4rj6zql2ph


    RacoonQueen wrote: »
    Yeah it's a bit stupid €85 + whatever a learner permit renewal is, every two (?) years, versus, €85 + cost of full licence. Then just renewal cost every ten years.

    €35 each time


  • #561
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    I'm sure people would do that. It's just creating more your word v my word scenario. It's ridiculous unenforceable law.
    i don't see what's difficult about it.
    to the car owner: 'do you want to proceed with initiating criminal proceedings against the person who took your car?' is a simple enough yes/no question, and the yes/no outcome determines how fines are levied.


  • Advertisement
  • #562
    RacoonQueen
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,366 Mod ✭✭✭✭RacoonQueen


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    i don't see what's difficult about it.
    to the car owner: 'do you want to proceed with initiating criminal proceedings against the person who took your car?' is a simple enough yes/no question, and the yes/no outcome determines how fines are levied.

    When it's your kid though. Tough question to answer.

    Learner drivers who have their own cars, of which many do, are pretty much unaffected by the change. They have come out time and time again saying they will crack down on learner drivers driving unaccompanied and they never seem to.


  • #563
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    Another possibility is that people will change their cars to their children's or friends names in order to avoid having their vehicle taken. There are ways to get around it


  • #564
    ayux4rj6zql2ph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭ayux4rj6zql2ph


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Another possibility is that people will change their cars to their children's or friends names in order to avoid having their vehicle taken. There are ways to get around it

    Doesn’t matter whose name the car is in, if they drive alone, car seized.


  • #565
    RacoonQueen
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,366 Mod ✭✭✭✭RacoonQueen


    Parker Clever Sextant wrote: »
    €35 each time

    That's €120 quid a year for third one onwards :eek: Would make more sense to just do the test and fail it to at least get the two year permit.
    A first and second learner permit usually lasts for two years each time while a third and subsequent permit lasts for one year. If you are taking out a third or subsequent permit you must show evidence of having taken a driving test in the previous two years or hold an appointment for a forthcoming driving test. If you have taken a test you will be given a two year permit while if you hold a test date your permit will last only for one year.

    Really they could tackle that by just not allowing people to use a 'future' test date for subsequent renewals. Once test can actually cover you for 3 years.
    Get your renewal for 2019 based on 'future test date', fail test, get a two year renewal in 2020 based on (same) failed test.


  • #566
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    RacoonQueen wrote: »
    When it's your kid though. Tough question to answer.
    no, it's not. you take it on the chin and take the fine that comes with being the owner of the car. and deal with the situation with your kid.


  • #567
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Another possibility is that people will change their cars to their children's or friends names in order to avoid having their vehicle taken. There are ways to get around it
    i've recently reinsured my car. as you might imagine, one of the questions i was asked was whether i was the owner of the car.

    i can just guess at what the premium would have been if i'd tried to insure a car belonging to someone with a provisional licence.


  • #568
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Another possibility is that people will change their cars to their children's or friends names in order to avoid having their vehicle taken. There are ways to get around it



    If the learner is a named driver on the car or the car is in their name , they won't get around the mobile car baler :








  • #569
    ayux4rj6zql2ph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭ayux4rj6zql2ph


    RacoonQueen wrote: »
    That's €120 quid a year for third one onwards :eek: Would make more sense to just do the test and fail it to at least get the two year permit.



    Really they could tackle that by just not allowing people to use a 'future' test date for subsequent renewals. Once test can actually cover you for 3 years.
    Get your renewal for 2019 based on 'future test date', fail test, get a two year renewal in 2020 based on (same) failed test.

    €120 a year versus €55 for 10 years if they pass.

    Beggars belief, and you then have some of these people amongst those up in arms at the new legislation, they need to get out and do the test, i honestly don't get this phobia of driving tests, yes people can be nervous naturally, but so nervous that they point blank refuse to take the test? Madness Ted.


  • #570
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,476 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Parker Clever Sextant wrote: »
    Beggars belief, and you then have some of these people amongst those up in arms at the new legislation, they need to get out and do the test, i honestly don't get this phobia of driving tests, yes people can be nervous naturally, but so nervous that they point blank refuse to take the test? Madness Ted.

    These people need to be taken off the road permanently.

    Scrap the cap!



  • Advertisement
  • #571
    ayux4rj6zql2ph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭ayux4rj6zql2ph


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    These people need to be taken off the road permanently.

    100%

    It’s a 30/40 minute test once in a lifetime if done right and people won’t do it.


  • #572
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,688 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    Parker Clever Sextant wrote: »
    Doesn’t matter whose name the car is in, if they drive alone, car seized.

    Does anyone know what happens post seizure under the new law. Is it just a matter of paying a fine at the pound and you get it back the next day?


  • #573
    ayux4rj6zql2ph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭ayux4rj6zql2ph


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    Does anyone know what happens post seizure under the new law. Is it just a matter of paying a fine at the pound and you get it back the next day?

    Standard impound fees apply, along the lines of a same day release of €130* + €25* per day there after.

    Also if the learner is collecting the car i think they need the logbook,I.D,full licensed driver present etc.

    I've never had a vehicle seized in my life so have never gone through the process, someone looking in may give a more definitive version.

    *prices open to correction*


  • #574
    MTBD
    Registered Users Posts: 244 ✭✭MTBD


    lbc2019 wrote: »
    You no longer can

    Sorry, I haven't read this thread in its entirety but people like this guy really tick me off. Dozens and dozens of posts no longer than a sentence and a total failure to engage with any arguments. Just repetitive statements showing how righteous he/she is. Well done, we all realise how faultless you are as a human being. You can go about your business now.

    Anyway, I tend to agree that the ad is over the top and serves no purpose other than to torment the girl and her family (and to be frank I think it is quite likely to be inflicting serious additional mental trauma on that girl and her family). This is a quote from an article about it:

    "Medical reports confirmed that the accused was overwhelmed, distraught and emotionally fragile following the accident and was in a state of near panic all the time.

    “There are days she wishes she had died, she genuinely regrets it. She is utterly terrified of the consequences of a custodial sentence...There but for the grace of God go so many people who make mistakes on the road,” defence senior counsel James O’Mahony said.

    I actually think some people here would prefer the girl commit suicide rather than forgive her. She made a mistake, I take pity on her. Too much eye for an eye crap being spouted here.

    I also dont see why people prefer to blame the girl than the council here. The crash would have been pretty innocuous only for the fact that there was a gap in the wall which the council had know about for years. So why isn't there an ad guilt tripping the person/persons in charge of road maintenance in county Cork? I think they deserve it, if the girl does. There are thousands of well known, needless hazards all over the roads in this country which the councils are allowed to get away with because there is no legal obligation on them to maintain roads. I've been trying to get the council to fill two massive 8" deep potholes outside my house for 2 months and they couldnt be bothered. If a cyclist or motorcyclist hits them they will be hurt.

    Councils here are only liable for maintenance if an accident is caused as a direct result of work they have recently carried out. In the UK and most countries the county council has a duty to maintain their roads and they are held liable in the event that this does not occur. Changing this law would have a dramatic effect on road safety I would say but it would cost the government money so they wont do it.

    The council was just as culpable as the girl in this case but lbc2019 and others like him wouldn't get the same self righteous, endorphin buzz out of berating a faceless government body...


  • #575
    lbc2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,291 ✭✭✭lbc2019


    MTBD wrote: »
    Sorry, I haven't read this thread in its entirety but people like this guy really tick me off. Dozens and dozens of posts no longer than a sentence and a total failure to engage with any arguments. Just repetitive statements showing how righteous he/she is. Well done, we all realise how faultless you are as a human being. You can go about your business now.

    Anyway, I tend to agree that the ad is over the top and serves no purpose other than to torment the girl and her family (and to be frank I think it is quite likely to be inflicting serious additional mental trauma on that girl and her family). This is a quote from an article about it:

    "Medical reports confirmed that the accused was overwhelmed, distraught and emotionally fragile following the accident and was in a state of near panic all the time.

    “There are days she wishes she had died, she genuinely regrets it. She is utterly terrified of the consequences of a custodial sentence...There but for the grace of God go so many people who make mistakes on the road,” defence senior counsel James O’Mahony said.

    I actually think some people here would prefer the girl commit suicide rather than forgive her. She made a mistake, I take pity on her. Too much eye for an eye crap being spouted here.

    I also dont see why people prefer to blame the girl than the council here. The crash would have been pretty innocuous only for the fact that there was a gap in the wall which the council had know about for years. So why isn't there an ad guilt tripping the person/persons in charge of road maintenance in county Cork? I think they deserve it, if the girl does. There are thousands of well known, needless hazards all over the roads in this country which the councils are allowed to get away with because there is no legal obligation on them to maintain roads. I've been trying to get the council to fill two massive 8" deep potholes outside my house for 2 months and they couldnt be bothered. If a cyclist or motorcyclist hits them they will be hurt.

    Councils here are only liable for maintenance if an accident is caused as a direct result of work they have recently carried out. In the UK and most countries the county council has a duty to maintain their roads and they are held liable in the event that this does not occur. Changing this law would have a dramatic effect on road safety I would say but it would cost the government money so they wont do it.

    The council was just as culpable as the girl in this case but lbc2019 and others like him wouldn't get the same self righteous, endorphin buzz out of berating a faceless government body...

    The council didn't fail to stop. I believe in the rule of law.


  • #576
    brightspark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,637 ✭✭✭brightspark


    MTBD wrote: »
    Anyway, I tend to agree that the ad is over the top and serves no purpose other than to torment the girl and her family

    It serves to highlight that learners should not be driving unaccompanied (If they are competent then they should pass the test, until they pass they are not deemed competent.

    MTBD wrote: »
    “There are days she wishes she had died, she genuinely regrets it. She is utterly terrified of the consequences of a custodial sentence...There but for the grace of God go so many people who make mistakes on the road,” defence senior counsel James O’Mahony said.

    Of course she regrets it, anyone would! Others should learn from her mistake.

    MTBD wrote: »
    She made a mistake, I take pity on her.
    Her mistake was driving unaccompanied, the advert may mean that someone else doesn't make the same mistake.


    MTBD wrote: »
    The council was just as culpable as the girl in this case but lbc2019 and others like him wouldn't get the same self righteous, endorphin buzz out of berating a faceless government body...
    If the council had repaired the wall then perhaps it would have been a collision with with the wall, no way of knowing how severe injuries may or may not have been.
    Regardsless of whether or not it was a factor in the accident, there would be no need for an advert to alert councils of their need to maintain roads etc.


  • Advertisement
  • #577
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,688 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    :eek:

    Unaccompanied learner on a motorway doing 174kph

    https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1085811896169701377


  • #578
    ayux4rj6zql2ph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭ayux4rj6zql2ph


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    :eek:

    Unaccompanied learner on a motorway doing 174kph

    https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1085811896169701377

    Just shy of 110mph in old money,so around 30mph over the limit, silly silly boy. Dangerous driving charge coming his way. You’d expect a ban but mitigation is something else. The justice system need to come down hard on these offenders, but if it’s a juvenile offender (a 17 year old) well say no more as that’s a controversial topic already


  • #579
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,219 ✭✭✭pablo128


    Parker Clever Sextant wrote: »
    Just shy of 110mph in old money,so around 30mph over the limit, silly silly boy. Dangerous driving charge coming his way. You’d expect a ban but mitigation is something else. The justice system need to come down hard on these offenders, but if it’s a juvenile offender (a 17 year old) well say no more as that’s a controversial topic already

    He should be lashed out of it. There's an advert on at the moment about unaccompanied drivers, controversial I'll admit. He's bound to have seen it and it doesn't occur to his pea brain to go easy and not draw attention. No sir. He went one better and drove without tax an insurance too.


  • #580
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    pablo128 wrote: »
    There's an advert on at the moment about unaccompanied drivers, controversial I'll admit.
    that's what this thread is about.


  • #581
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,219 ✭✭✭pablo128


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    that's what this thread is about.

    I've only just twigged that. I thought I was replying to the Garda traffic Twitter thread.:o


  • Advertisement
  • #582
    Isambard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,795 ✭✭✭Isambard


    i can't understand why the RSA would pay for the ad to still be going out. Any impact it had is surely lost by now, I must have seen it 50 times.


  • #583
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,688 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    Isambard wrote: »
    i can't understand why the RSA would pay for the ad to still be going out. Any impact it had is surely lost by now, I must have seen it 50 times.

    I'd say it will be running a good while yet though perhaps not as frequently after a while. The previous one of the aftermath of the crash where a drunk driver killed a four year old child is still running now and its been on the go for over a year.


  • #584
    ayux4rj6zql2ph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭ayux4rj6zql2ph


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    I'd say it will be running a good while yet though perhaps not as frequently after a while. The previous one of the aftermath of the crash where a drunk driver killed a four year old child is still running now and its been on the go for over a year.

    Not withstanding Mr Clancy’s loss, his wife was 58 his daughter 22, the parents who lost a 4 year old child are in a much worse position than Mr Clancy, no death is nice, but Clancy experienced things with his daughter that the parents of the 4 year old can only ever dream of now. The ad about that child really hits home, more than the Clancy one which I am undecided on.


  • #585
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,476 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Ah come on. He lost his wife, his companion in life, and his daughter too, and he's left alone. I can't imagine what having my whole family ripped away from me would feel like.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #586
    ayux4rj6zql2ph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭ayux4rj6zql2ph


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Ah come on. He lost his wife, his companion in life, and his daughter too, and he's left alone. I can't imagine what having my whole family ripped away from me would feel like.

    He still has his other daughter and son, so not left alone. I can’t imagine what it must feel like for him ha big come upon the accident and not recognising them initially. A lifetime of counseling wouldn’t even help ease that pain


  • #587
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,440 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Isambard wrote: »
    i can't understand why the RSA would pay for the ad to still be going out. Any impact it had is surely lost by now, I must have seen it 50 times.

    For the same reason that Vodafone pay for the Dermot Bannon ad to still be going out - because it works.


  • #588
    Isambard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,795 ✭✭✭Isambard


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    For the same reason that Vodafone pay for the Dermot Bannon ad to still be going out - because it works.

    and the proof of that is....?


  • #589
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,440 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Isambard wrote: »
    and the proof of that is....?
    Because every advertiser that has money to spend does it. Do you think Vodafone do it for the craic?


  • #590
    Isambard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,795 ✭✭✭Isambard


    a bit different though for an ongoing sales campaign, A road safety message either gets through or it doesn't . I can't see the point of keep spending money pushing the same message to people who've already seen it multiple times and already taken it onboard or dismissed it. At least with Vodafone there will be people entering the market for a phone, having just broken their own or being dissatisfied with their service provider. I don't think you can apply normal marketing parameters to road safety.


  • #591
    brightspark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,637 ✭✭✭brightspark


    The advert obviously has had some effect, there are people on learner permits here who seem to think that they should drive unaccompanied despite it being illegal for NINE years now. From some of the comments here you would think that it was something new. The only difference now is that the penalties have changed.

    Any one on a learner permit who thinks that they are a good driver only has to pass the test and then they no longer need to be accompanied, however since the statistics indicate half of those attempting the test fail, it is obvious that a lot of learners are over estimating their competency.


  • Advertisement
  • #592
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,440 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Isambard wrote: »
    a bit different though for an ongoing sales campaign, A road safety message either gets through or it doesn't . I can't see the point of keep spending money pushing the same message to people who've already seen it multiple times and already taken it onboard or dismissed it. At least with Vodafone there will be people entering the market for a phone, having just broken their own or being dissatisfied with their service provider. I don't think you can apply normal marketing parameters to road safety.
    I've no professional experience in the area, but recent referendum campaigns suggest that attitudinal change requires frequent, regular, persistent ongoing contact to work. US political campaigns seem to work on the same basis.


Advertisement