# Any provisional drivers caught yet?



## xb_deai

Any provisional divers stopped and asked for licence yet?


----------



## DeeFox

I have not seen a single L plate yet today - I suspect the Learners have taken them down.  Is insurance still valid for a learner is in a car without L plates and without an accommpanied driver?


----------



## briancbyrne

DeeFox said:


> I have not seen a single L plate yet today - I suspect the Learners have taken them down. Is insurance still valid for a learner is in a car without L plates and without an accommpanied driver?


 
yes - on both accounts


----------



## Towger

DeeFox said:


> Is insurance still valid for a learner is in a car without L plates and without an accommpanied driver?


 
They say it is, but know the insurance companies i'ed say they will payout to the 3rd party, but not to the driver if they have comprehensive insurance.


----------



## briancbyrne

Towger said:


> They say it is, but know the insurance companies i'ed say they will payout to the 3rd party, but not to the driver if they have comprehensive insurance.


 

I doubt it very much - that would be commercial suicide.
I work in a brokers and the official word back is that all cover will remain unaffected. The only time they will not pay out (i.e. only pay out 3rd party) would be due to gross negligence / drunk driving / driving under influence of drugs - i.e. things have not changed


----------



## Hasslehoff

I think an insurer would have to pay a third party but would renege on paying out the insured or owner/driver if they stick to the terms of the insurance contract . If the law applies that a learner must be accompanied and in the event of a claim the driver is not accompanied ,and at fault, you think that the insurers position is to say that they have broken the law but we will not look at that as a way to avoid the policy, you must be joking ! If that were the case what matrix is then used to meaure highly illegal, midly illegal breaches of the road traffic code??? no NCT, baldy tyres, driving without a licence , unroadworthy vehicle. I am sorry but insurance is a contract and if the insurance contract repudiates cover for breaches of the road traffic act well then you will not get paid out (unless this is expressly stated on the terms of the policy). If I have no NCT and another insured has no full driver with them what is the difference , they are now both breaches of the road traffic code, do you need to see how your policy deals with that. I suggest ( as i advised to my niece) that you simply write to you insurer and ask them for a letter clarifying their position on this scenario , like her you might end up driving around with a letter stating that full cover will remain in the event that she befalls an accident while unaccompanied.

OK !


----------



## tiger

More info on the RSA site here


> *
> Q:​*​What is the penalty if a learner drives a vehicle without displaying L plates?​
> *A: *It is a penal offence and is punishable by a minimum fine of €1,000


----------



## Iceman732

Hasslehoff has forgotten that is was always illegal to drive unaccompanied on a provisional, with the expection of second provisionals. So using Hasslehoff's logic will all those you have not received payment of an insurance claim due to the fact that they were on a first provisional please stand up?!!

Hasslehoff do you know of many contracts that expressly premit illegal activities? That's like to section of an Income Tax Return that allows you to return income from illegal activities! 

This will all die down in a week or two and every provisional driver will be back on the road, which personally I agree with. It's madness to think that the first time a person sits in a car without being accompanied by some they know is the day of their test surely that puts the drivers at a disadvantage as appossed to the old circumstances? I'm assuming that people don't drive with strangers all the much and a driving instructor is there to help you so he's not going to put you off.


----------



## Peeete

Hasslehoff said:


> I think an insurer would have to pay a third party but would renege on paying out the insured or owner/driver if they stick to the terms of the insurance contract . If the law applies that a learner must be accompanied and in the event of a claim the driver is not accompanied ,and at fault, you think that the insurers position is to say that they have broken the law but we will not look at that as a way to avoid the policy, you must be joking ! If that were the case what matrix is then used to meaure highly illegal, midly illegal breaches of the road traffic code??? no NCT, baldy tyres, driving without a licence , unroadworthy vehicle. I am sorry but insurance is a contract and if the insurance contract repudiates cover for breaches of the road traffic act well then you will not get paid out (unless this is expressly stated on the terms of the policy). If I have no NCT and another insured has no full driver with them what is the difference , they are now both breaches of the road traffic code, do you need to see how your policy deals with that. I suggest ( as i advised to my niece) that you simply write to you insurer and ask them for a letter clarifying their position on this scenario , like her you might end up driving around with a letter stating that full cover will remain in the event that she befalls an accident while unaccompanied.
> 
> OK !



This advice will be no use to your niece or anyone else. Insurance companies will not give out such letters. These letters are endorsing an illegal action. Has your niece tried this action?


----------



## Graham_07

While I did not see it in the new RSA rules, it was reported on TV3 yesterday that unless the "accompanying driver" was insured on that vehicle they would not qualify as an accompanying driver. The logic apparently being that if the accompanying driver had to take over the car they would not be automatically insured. I find this an extraordinary extension which would seriously erode the availability of accompanying drivers and wonder did anyone else hear it.


----------



## Hasslehoff

Iceman??? "Hasslehoff do you know of many contracts that expressly premit illegal activities?" No , that is my point if you read the email in full. Read the email again,(but to explain to you) My niece has an unenforceable promise from her insurer to deal with a claim in the event that she is unaccompanied , therefore their intention is to pay out the third party and the driver/owner. Just to inform you that illegal terms in a contract are not binding but they only become an issue when those terms are in dispute , READ AGAIN. So if everyone gets paid who will dispute ? This is the practical reality and by the way there were 27 cases last year whereby the insurer reneged cover on a motor policy due to provisional driver clause in the contract.


----------



## rmelly

briancbyrne said:


> I doubt it very much - that would be commercial suicide.
> I work in a brokers and the official word back is that all cover will remain unaffected. The only time they will not pay out (i.e. only pay out 3rd party) would be due to gross negligence / drunk driving / driving under influence of drugs - i.e. things have not changed


 
Plus the latest change affects people on second only, it was always an offence for drivers on a provisional other than second to drive unaccompanied, and there was never previously an issue with insurers not covering.


----------



## merzie

do you think if i advertise for a person with a full licence for the minimum 2 yrs to accompany myself and my children on my daily driving routine and a possible trip to wexford for a holiday,would i get many offers and would the government pay them, because i certainly cant afford it.after all it is the law


----------



## theoneill

I’m still wondering who’s going to drive that pretty blonde girl who was on Questions and Answers last night to work


----------



## rmelly

merzie said:


> do you think if i advertise for a person with a full licence for the minimum 2 yrs to accompany myself and my children on my daily driving routine and a possible trip to wexford for a holiday,would i get many offers and would the government pay them, because i certainly cant afford it.after all it is the law


 
Did you not know this was the risk you took when you became dependent on your car without a full licence?


----------



## jhegarty

theoneill said:


> I’m still wondering who’s going to drive that pretty blonde girl who was on Questions and Answers last night to work



I was worried about that as well...


----------



## sparkles08

Merzie I was actually wondering the same thing myself


----------



## merzie

rmelly said:


> Did you not know this was the risk you took when you became dependent on your car without a full licence?


actually i didn't, iv been driving 13yrs and never had an accident or a near miss and i have yet to be passed on my test. as far as i knew the law up to yesterday was anyone on their second provisional or over didn't need a full licence driver beside them. maybe i got that one wrong


----------



## Satanta

merzie said:


> as far as i knew the law up to yesterday was anyone on their second provisional or over didn't need a full licence driver beside them. maybe i got that one wrong


A person on a second provisional licence didn't need to be accompanied by a fully licenced driver, but anything subsequent to that (e.g. third prov licence) did require a fully licenced driver beside them.


----------



## rmelly

Yes, it was second provisional ONLY that didn't need to be accompanied. Have you sat the test at all?


----------



## briancbyrne

I think the Guards will have to police this appropriately. If they start pulling every learner and fining them there will be bedlam. It would also in my opinion be grossly unfair. There are many people out there who have taken jobs in locations that would have required the use of a vehicle (even if on a provisional licence). They now find themselves outside the law.
If you were faced with the choice of following the letter of the law or driving to work so you can pay the mortgage and put food on the table for your family, I know which I would pick.

Yet again another half cocked ill-thought out idea that is in my opinion unenforceable. Especially given the lack of alternative public transport. - the cart before the horse again.


----------



## merzie

rmelly said:


> Yes, it was second provisional ONLY that didn't need to be accompanied. Have you sat the test at all?


iv sat the test 3 times , i even got pretests and was told i was grand nothing much to worry about at all. it baffles me because a young person i know that wrote off 2 cars and is known to be a careless driver passed their test recently.


----------



## Graham_07

merzie said:


> iv sat the test 3 times , i even got pretests and was told i was grand nothing much to worry about at all. it baffles me because a young person i know that wrote off 2 cars and is known to be a careless driver passed their test recently.


 

You may have had to sit the tests you did under "normal conditions"at those times.  The recent flood of testing would appear to have resulted in a higher than previous pass rate, looking at the stats in recent months. I wonder how many people sitting yesterday failed ?


----------



## rmelly

merzie said:


> iv sat the test 3 times , i even got pretests and was told i was grand nothing much to worry about at all. it baffles me because a young person i know that wrote off 2 cars and is known to be a careless driver passed their test recently.


 
Good luck next time.


----------



## theoneill

In all fairness I find it difficult to believe that nobody saw this coming. In know officially it was announced back in December however the signs were there for the past two years. It was only ever a matter of when (not if) they were going to crack down. While I do sympathise with those that have been left in the position of having to break the law in order to go about their business there if a large part of me that feels that it really shouldn’t take 4 years to get around to taking your test, if you were really serious about wanting to drive you would have applied on receipt of your first provisional, paid for and taken lessons (from a reputable instructor) and having done everything right passed the test. Even with a year wait that still gives you four attempts. To borrow a saying “Fail to prepare, prepare to fail”. It seems that too many people chose to believe that the powers that be wouldn’t really do anything about this and that it will never happen or that the Guards won’t really enforce the law.

At least this process has exposed a large minority of drivers who have failed several tests and really have no business on the roads. I really do believe that you are either licensed to drive or you are not, there is no grey area. There are too many variables to consider while driving at the best of times without wondering if the person behind / in front / coming at you head on as actually bothered to properly learn how to use the machine they are operating.

While I do feel sorry for those who are affected by the new regulations, I will not be loosing any sleep over them.


----------



## Peeete

I also feel sorry for these people, but the law needed to change. If it was the case that everyone was entitled to drive on the road with a provisional license then what (with the exception of lower insurance) would be the incentive for anyone to sit a test. Provisional license = ability to drive???

Also, in 12 months time things will have changed. People had become complacent in the current situation - i.e. don't need to bother too much about test as I can still drive. Once the backlog (of older people who have become dependent on their cars in such a scenario) has been cleared , it will be mainly younger people in their training phase that will be obtaining provisional licenses and they will naturally move through the system to full driving license followed by dependence on car.

The way it was - get car & provisional licence - get dependent on car - maybe think about trying to get full license.


----------



## Blossy

i passed my test two weeks ago and in celebrations i ripped off my l plates. i have the cert of competency in my car, but have not had the chance to collect my pink licence...where am i? does the cert cover me as a full licenced driver??

Sorry for jumping in???


----------



## theoneill

Blossy said:


> i passed my test two weeks ago and in celebrations i ripped off my l plates. i have the cert of competency in my car, but have not had the chance to collect my pink licence...where am i? does the cert cover me as a full licenced driver??
> 
> Sorry for jumping in???



AFAIK your cert should be enough, it proves you have passed your test


----------



## shesells

theoneill said:


> AFAIK your cert should be enough, it proves you have passed your test


 
But it's not a full licence and the only licence still held is a provisional.  The Coc only entitles you to apply for a full licence. From what I remember the CoC actually states on it "this is not a substitute for a full driving licence" or words to that effect.


----------



## theoneill

I think you're right. I'm getting confused with the pink slip they hand you at the tax office. Better high tail it to your local tax office and submit your application. The receipt they give you will do till your license is posted. Sorry about that


----------



## elefantfresh

Would someone please explain the logic to me WHY you should be allowed to drive unsupervised if you have not passed your test?


----------



## theoneill

elefantfresh said:


> Would someone please explain the logic to me WHY you should be allowed to drive unsupervised if you have not passed your test?



It's an Irish solution to an Irish problem


----------



## Peeete

elefantfresh said:


> Would someone please explain the logic to me WHY you should be allowed to drive unsupervised if you have not passed your test?



I had the same question - as per my post above - the main reason I can see that is been given (not just here but from people I have heard talking - radio/TV/friends) is that they need their cars! Sometimes people don't seem to think these things through (8 months for example)


----------



## llbedford

Blossy said:


> i passed my test two weeks ago and in celebrations i ripped off my l plates. i have the cert of competency in my car, but have not had the chance to collect my pink licence...where am i? does the cert cover me as a full licenced driver??
> 
> Sorry for jumping in???


 

hi,
I looked up the R.S.A. website this morning and no you are still technically driving on a provisional licence.
your cert of competency is'nt recognised until it's swapped for a full licence.

so... legally you need both your L plates an a qualified driver!!

sounds daft, doesn't it? 

only a right bad ******* would do you for that! I think garda discression is the key... I'm sure there's plenty of boys in blue on provisionals who have to get to work too!

I haven't ventured out yet... still debating whether or not to leave my L plates up


----------



## Graham_07

elefantfresh said:


> Would someone please explain the logic to me WHY you should be allowed to drive unsupervised if you have not passed your test?


 


theoneill said:


> It's an Irish solution to an Irish problem


 
This goes right back to 1979. Not enough testers, too many applicants, so give anyone with 2 provisionals a licence. The Irish solution. Same later with the first provisional accompanied, second not accompanied, third accompanied, rule. React to the situation rather than having defined rules to start with. Then people get used to believing that the non-application of a rule is actually the rule itself. A major attitude change is needed and will probably come but it will be the generation of driver being tested from now on who will be the ones pass that attitude on.


----------



## LouisLaLoope

This provisional thing drives me nuts (no pun intended!!).  

I could understand the uproar six months ago when the clamp down was first suggested.  Provisional drivers should never have been allowed to drive on their own, but the Gardai turned a blind eye for years so the public had a legitimate expectation that that would continue.  But these drivers were given six months as some breathing space.  Get it together!


----------



## briancbyrne

Peeete said:


> I had the same question - as per my post above - the main reason I can see that is been given (not just here but from people I have heard talking - radio/TV/friends) is that they need their cars! Sometimes people don't seem to think these things through (8 months for example)


 
the problem from what I can see is that people have due to a circumstances out of thier control, (lack of public transport / urban sprawl/ cost of house prices necessitating living a distance from thier place of work) have a lack of alternatives. They have built thier lives around the ability to use thier car, at a time when it was ok to do so. The use of the car was there when they made life altering decisions (place of work / house location).
In my opinion its simply not good enough to simply say you cant do that anymore. - In a perfect word maybe but not as things stand. This is a problem brought about by recent governments inability to come up with a wrkable solution (e.g on-going training centres where drivers on L plates could do training while continuing to use vehicle)
The bottom line is, and there is no getting away from the fact that some L plate drivers actually do not have a choice but to use thier cars.Period.

To demonstrate a "they should not be driving and that is that" attitude shows a distinct lack of understanding of the situation some people found themselves this morning. Its great they have the full licence but it doesnt solve the problem that there are over 100,000 drivers on the road this morning who shouldnt have been not out of choice but out of necessity.


----------



## elefantfresh

> To demonstrate a "they should not be driving and that is that" attitude shows a distinct lack of understanding of the situation some people found themselves this morning. Its great they have the full licence but it doesnt solve the problem that there are over 100,000 drivers on the road this morning who shouldnt have been not out of choice but out of necessity.



I understand what you're saying and this is why the government did a total u-turn 6-8 months ago whenever it was - learner drivers have had that long to get off their arses and learn how to drive - this did NOT sneak up on anyone did it? Surely to goodness 6-8 months is more than enough time to apply and pass a test isnt it?


----------



## LouisLaLoope

I believe that the six month time frame drawn up allowed people an adequate amount of time to schedule their tests (provisional driver friends told me this but I'm open to correction).  If this is the case, all provisional drivers should have taken a test.  If they failed, how on earth can anyone argue that they should be on the road?!  I get the issue of a lack of public transport, etc, and I don't underestimate it.  But people are either safe to drive unaccompanied on the roads or they are not.  If they are competent, then they should have passed their tests within that six month period.

Seriously, what am I missing here?!!


----------



## Peeete

briancbyrne said:


> the problem from what I can see is that people have due to a circumstances out of thier control, (lack of public transport / urban sprawl/ cost of house prices necessitating living a distance from thier place of work) have a lack of alternatives. They have built thier lives around the ability to use thier car, at a time when it was ok to do so. The use of the car was there when they made life altering decisions (place of work / house location).
> In my opinion its simply not good enough to simply say you cant do that anymore. - In a perfect word maybe but not as things stand. This is a problem brought about by recent governments inability to come up with a wrkable solution (e.g on-going training centres where drivers on L plates could do training while continuing to use vehicle)
> The bottom line is, and there is no getting away from the fact that some L plate drivers actually do not have a choice but to use thier cars.Period.
> 
> To demonstrate a "they should not be driving and that is that" attitude shows a distinct lack of understanding of the situation some people found themselves this morning. Its great they have the full licence but it doesnt solve the problem that there are over 100,000 drivers on the road this morning who shouldnt have been not out of choice but out of necessity.



Brian,

I do have sympathy for some of these people, but things did need to change and it was not acceptable to change it over night. Hence (all be it a late move) the buffer to allow people to have there tests carried out before the enforcement. However, these people were not born driving. The next generation will grow up knowing they must pass the test before they can become reliant on a car. The problem with our generation is people grew up becoming dependent on their car with no incentive to get a full license. This had to change and unfortunately there will be some pain in the transition. 

Do you think we should have maintained the statusquo? If not how would you have approached the problem?


----------



## briancbyrne

elefantfresh said:


> I understand what you're saying and this is why the government did a total u-turn 6-8 months ago whenever it was - learner drivers have had that long to get off their arses and learn how to drive - this did NOT sneak up on anyone did it? Surely to goodness 6-8 months is more than enough time to apply and pass a test isnt it?


 
I agree with you.
However - there seems to be a lack of a level playing field with regard to the testing. For example - I was speaking with a driving instructer who is telling all of the students (particularly males) if they have an appointment with one of the oldd gov accessment centres to cancel it and try get one with the new private centres.

Also he hasnt had a fail in 6 days - something he has never seen before.
His colleagues also have seen a huge upsurge in pass rates in the past 4 weeks.
Call me suspicious but somenthing doesnt seem right here.


----------



## Peeete

Just because you need a car doesn't automatically entitle you top drive one! If for example you leave school at 16 and get a job as an apprentice and you are working in the country. Using the above logic, they too should be allowed to drive.


----------



## briancbyrne

Peeete said:


> Just because you need a car doesn't automatically entitle you top drive one! If for example you leave school at 16 and get a job as an apprentice and you are working in the country. Using the above logic, they too should be allowed to drive.


 

C'mon Peete - think your just pickn a fight !!


----------



## Peeete

briancbyrne said:


> I agree with you.
> However - there seems to be a lack of a level playing field with regard to the testing. For example - I was speaking with a driving instructer who is telling all of the students (particularly males) if they have an appointment with one of the oldd gov accessment centres to cancel it and try get one with the new private centres.
> 
> Also he hasnt had a fail in 6 days - something he has never seen before.
> His colleagues also have seen a huge upsurge in pass rates in the past 4 weeks.
> Call me suspicious but somenthing doesnt seem right here.



This is a completely different issue - this is one on the standard of testing and the above is simply anecdotal.


----------



## Peeete

briancbyrne said:


> C'mon Peete - think your just pickn a fight !!



As I said earlier, I do feel sorry for people in this situation. Its just a mad situation that had to change at some time. unfortunately as with most transitions - they cause pain to some. But it should improve things in the future.


----------



## llbedford

so... has anyone been stopped yet??


----------



## llbedford

by the gardai? on the road? provisional licence?


----------



## shesells

According to the radio this morning there were a number of checkpoints in Dublin and people with L plates and young looking drivers were being stopped.

I still saw 10 unaccompanied drivers with L plates today. But it's about 1/4 of the normal number so that's a lot of plates taken down. Worth risking a €1,000 fine for being caught without L plates on top of the fine for driving unaccompanied? Each to their own I guess.


----------



## ACA

Coming originally from the UK, it took me a long time to get my head round the things that provisional licence holders could get away with. Where else could you take your test, fail and then get in your car to drive home, alone? ......only in Ireland! 

Whilst I do sympathise with people who live out in the sticks and have a poor/nonexistant public transport system....how did they manage to get around before they got a car? 

As pointed out in earlier posts, this day has been coming for a while - Gaybo wasn't going to leave this fall by the wayside!

Working for an insurance company looking after claims - I've been told that initially whether or not we indemnify a provisional licence holder in the event of a mishap, (accident/malicious damage/theft etc) will be dealt with on a claim-by-claim basis.

I believe that it'll all come down to how hard the gardai push to prosecute, because if the insurer refuses to indemnify the driver, they could get done for no insurance too. Tricky days ahead.


----------



## Furze

shesells said:


> I still saw 10 unaccompanied drivers with L plates today. But it's about 1/4 of the normal number so that's a lot of plates taken down. Worth risking a €1,000 fine for being caught without L plates on top of the fine for driving unaccompanied? Each to their own I guess.


 
I've a full licence - daughter has L plate on my car - do I have to take down when driving alone ?


----------



## tink

Hi, I am affected by this too but the guards say there will  be no crackdown and I actually think it makes sense! I was talking to a German friend of mine who was living here and she couldn't believe the rules here, in Germany the average person takes 42 hours of driving lessons, I told her most people here went for their test after 10 lessons and she was appalled ! Looking at the quality of driving on the road maybe she was right?


----------



## shesells

Furze - Haven't seen it mentioned anywhere. I think a poster on another thread mentioned that in Australia you get done for driving with L plates if you're not a learner.

Personally I would take the plates down when you're driving - you don't need the extra attention they might bring either from the Gardai or other drivers. I used to use Velcro dot fixers, one in each corner so I could take my plates on and off back in my learner days.

Tink - a lot of people don't have any official lessons when going for a test, many have lots more than 10. Not sure where you're pulling the figure of 10 from, I've never heard it before?


----------



## paddyd

llbedford said:


> so... has anyone been stopped yet??



48 posts of the usual he-said/she-said, and no-one has actually posted on-topic. Not even me.

Which proabbly means that no-one was 'caught' and the Guards (as they said at the weekend) are taking a common sense approach to this rule.

It should be on the Penalty Points list as opposed to a €1000 fine thats impossible to impose. No judge will uphold it.


----------



## shesells

Check out my post #48 - I was referring to the Live Drive programme on Dublin City FM. At several points during this morning's show the presenter referred to cars with L plates being pulled in by the Gardai (they could see them on the traffic cameras). So yes, some people have been stopped.


----------



## starlite68

its strange how we go about solving our problems here in ireland, its on record that learner drivers are only involved in a very small pecentage of road accidents...the vast majority of accidents are by those holding a full licence..........so what do we do...put the L drivers off the road,,,and give the others a clap on the back!!!


----------



## smythy

LouisLaLoope said:


> This provisional thing drives me nuts (no pun intended!!).
> 
> I could understand the uproar six months ago when the clamp down was first suggested.  Provisional drivers should never have been allowed to drive on their own, but the Gardai turned a blind eye for years so the public had a legitimate expectation that that would continue.  But these drivers were given six months as some breathing space.  Get it together!






Yes we were given six months to "get it together" but you obviously dont understand the full application process. Ok so when you decide i need to start driving, first there is the waiting to get an appointment for the theory test which i did, providing you pass this then you must send away for your provisional licence which uses more time and THEN you must wait 6 MONTHS b4 you can even apply to do your driving test which is a vital piece of information some people here are forgetting!!! i sent away and got my provisional in febuary which means i cant do my test until august! So how do you suggest i get to and from work for the next month!!! Its not like i go "spinning" i need to drive soley for work! Is there anyone here would like to get up at 7 every morning and accompany me.... i dont think so!! I think its ridculous and im one of the people who now have to dread driving to work for fear of a fine which is probably more then a few weeks wages!!

There should defo be exceptions made, obviously i agree with taking young reckless unaccompanied provisional drivers off the road but thats as far as i agree with it!

Angry girl in Mayo,18


----------



## cnu

Angry Girl,

You are not alone.  I'm angry too, I walked a hell lotta distance today for my train just that I dint wanna miss an important meeting.  I'm gonna remove my L plate tomorrow before I drive, or I have to stop working 

if they have told 8 months back, they should have made avenues to accomodate/provision to speed up whoever applied


----------



## shesells

Hold on a second Smythy - you're ignoring the fact that if you only got your *learner permit* (provisonals ceased to exist last year) in February and have been driving unaccompanied since then you were then breaking the law and liable for the same fine then as you are today. The only additional risk now is the fine for non-display of L plates. 

Your issue with the 6 months mandatory time gap between getting the permit and applying for your test is a separate one altogether.

Cnu - the average waiting time now for tests is 7 weeks. I waited *14 months*! So if you applied for your test 8 months ago when they announced the clamp down they would surely have got around to you by now?


----------



## europhile

starlite68 said:


> its strange how we go about solving our problems here in ireland, its on record that learner drivers are only involved in a very small pecentage of road accidents...the vast majority of accidents are by those holding a full licence..........so what do we do...put the L drivers off the road,,,and give the others a clap on the back!!!



You are, of course, joking about this.  I hope.


----------



## Slaphead

I've said it before and ill say it again, this new law is unfair in Ireland as there arnt other options available to a vast majority of ppl.
I've a full licence and lived 11 yrs in Sweden where this law has been in force longer than anyone can remember but the difference there is that there are other options. I used to get up in the morning and decide how to travel depending on my mood, bike, train, bus, car or a combination of the above! I could go weeks without driving. Since i moved back last summer i've barely had a full 24hrs without driving. 

It's just impracticle in this country and all those on their high horses thinking this is great should try a month or even a week without a car and get back to us.


----------



## Dinny

I come from the north and it was the norm to get your full license straight away when your turned 17, and we had to live with having a fully qualified driver with us at all times (No insurance and you were guaranteed to get stop in the old days). There are no more alternative options in the north than in the south with regards to public transport for rural locations.  

It is mentality thing here that you have the right to drive as soon as you are the legal age. After the threaten clampdown 6 months ago, I had to push my wife to take the test as she believed that it would be enforced. She failed the first time and passed the second time in the last six months. She was capable of doing the test twice in this time so people had the option of getting it done in time.


----------



## starlite68

europhile said:


> You are, of course, joking about this. I hope.


 why do you think i am joking? check out the stats for yourself.


----------



## europhile

starlite68 said:


> why do you think i am joking? check out the stats for yourself.



Of course, learner drivers have fewer accidents, there are fewer of them.


----------



## deedee80

> smythy*Re: Any provisional drivers caught yet?*
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LouisLaLoope* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=659771#post659771
> _This provisional thing drives me nuts (no pun intended!!).
> 
> I could understand the uproar six months ago when the clamp down was first suggested. Provisional drivers should never have been allowed to drive on their own, but the Gardai turned a blind eye for years so the public had a legitimate expectation that that would continue. But these drivers were given six months as some breathing space. Get it together!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we were given six months to "get it together" but you obviously dont understand the full application process. Ok so when you decide i need to start driving, first there is the waiting to get an appointment for the theory test which i did, providing you pass this then you must send away for your provisional licence which uses more time and THEN you must wait 6 MONTHS b4 you can even apply to do your driving test which is a vital piece of information some people here are forgetting!!! i sent away and got my provisional in febuary which means i cant do my test until august! So how do you suggest i get to and from work for the next month!!! Its not like i go "spinning" i need to drive soley for work! Is there anyone here would like to get up at 7 every morning and accompany me.... i dont think so!! I think its ridculous and im one of the people who now have to dread driving to work for fear of a fine which is probably more then a few weeks wages!!
> 
> There should defo be exceptions made, obviously i agree with taking young reckless unaccompanied provisional drivers off the road but thats as far as i agree with it!
> 
> Angry girl in Mayo,18


 
Smythy, how did you get to work before you applied for your provisional licence in Feb?  Surely you didn't take a new job that requires you to drive without having even taken one lesson (you can't have had lessons if you had no learner permit) and given the new rules that you knew were coming in to effect.  I think it is good that people should have at least 6 months lessons/practice under their belt before they can sit a test.  I know that I for one took longer than 6 months on the road to feel really competent and so although I had a car I just went out practicing with my Dad for months.  To be honest I would say that I and most of my friends would have been a bit of a liability when we first hit the open road (couple of accidents to prove it). I also felt a lot of pressure as in 'oh you have a car why aren't you driving to work yet etc' amazing how everyone you speak to took to driving like a duck to water, passed first time etc.  I think its better new learners won't have that pressure now.  While I definitely feel for the people on provisionals who are affected by this (I know some really competent drivers, driving years, just nervous wrecks being tested) at least it is now much quicker now to get a test.


----------



## LouisLaLoope

Slaphead said:


> It's just impracticle in this country and all those on their high horses thinking this is great should try a month or even a week without a car and get back to us.


 
I really, really do sympathise with the situation these drivers are in.  I would hate it if it were me.  I have to rely on public transport to get to and from work as I don't have a parking space (I know, poor me...) and it's erratic and undependable.  But how can people argue that they should be allowed to drive unaccompanied if they haven't passed their test?!  I just don't get it!

And regarding the six month notice, were provisional drivers not already making efforts before this to get their theory tests or apply to sit their driving tests, even with the long waiting lists?  

Other posters have said it - the system had to change and it's just unfortunate for all those adversely affected right now.  But you have to admit that it couldn't continue?


----------



## briancbyrne

europhile said:


> You are, of course, joking about this. I hope.


 

I dunno - it would be interesting to see the stats.
I work in a brokers office and I could count on 1 hand the amount of provisional driver involved claims Ive had this year - and I deal with a couple a day overall.

And as for the arguement that there are fewer than them - this is correct of course but there are still a huge number on the road - and I dont see the figure being comparable. (i.e. I see it favouring the side of the provisional)


----------



## Slaphead

LouisLaLoope said:


> I really, really do sympathise with the situation these drivers are in.  I would hate it if it were me.  I have to rely on public transport to get to and from work as I don't have a parking space (I know, poor me...) and it's erratic and undependable.  But how can people argue that they should be allowed to drive unaccompanied if they haven't passed their test?!  I just don't get it!
> 
> And regarding the six month notice, were provisional drivers not already making efforts before this to get their theory tests or apply to sit their driving tests, even with the long waiting lists?
> 
> Other posters have said it - the system had to change and it's just unfortunate for all those adversely affected right now.  But you have to admit that it couldn't continue?



Six months notice isnt enough, like i said had public transport been adequate i would have had no qualms. I got my licence in sweden and survived there for 5 yrs no problem without a licence. You cant get by here without a car, well not outside Dublin at least which means any 18yr  old who learns to drive at 18, fails a few tests, etc is stranded until their early 20's. Simply not feasible in this country at the moment. 

It's a fine law, just not for here, not at the moment.


----------



## tilly1

All provisisional licence holders CANNOT drive unless they have a full licence holder in the car with them.....  THere is no exception on what provisional licence you are on...


----------



## theoneill

_There should defo be exceptions made, obviously i agree with taking young reckless unaccompanied provisional drivers off the road but thats as far as i agree with it!

Angry girl in Mayo,18

_ I think you’re on to something here, if only there could be some kind of test to determine if somebody is a reckless driver


----------



## elefantfresh

> I think you’re on to something here, if only there could be some kind of test to determine if somebody is a reckless driver



he he!


----------



## LouisLaLoope

Slaphead said:


> Six months notice isnt enough, like i said had public transport been adequate i would have had no qualms. I got my licence in sweden and survived there for 5 yrs no problem without a licence. You cant get by here without a car, well not outside Dublin at least which means any 18yr old who learns to drive at 18, fails a few tests, etc is stranded until their early 20's. Simply not feasible in this country at the moment.
> 
> It's a fine law, just not for here, not at the moment.


 
So, because Ireland has let us down regarding public transport, we should be allowed to drive unlawfully?


----------



## wrappo

Last Oct Bank Hol Friday when this was announced I was on my first provisional licence and had applied for my test the previous June.  Like many others I went into meltdown when the announcement was made and breathed a great sigh of relief when we got until 30th June 2008 to sort out our affairs. (I know it only applied to second provisional drivers but the heat was off all of us in reality).  I hounded the RSA for a test date, spend money on pre-tests and practiced with anyone who would come out with me.  I passed my test last January but if I hadn't I would have applied immediately for a second test and had a letter from employer to speed it up, I imagine I could even have had time for a third test if I had to re-sit.  My point is that we were told we were off the road, we got ample time to sort it out and from what I read in the press, many people just ignored it  - for those that did ignore, I have no sympathy.


----------



## ubiquitous

wrappo said:


> Last Oct Bank Hol Friday when this was announced I was on my first provisional licence and had applied for my test the previous June.  Like many others I went into meltdown when the announcement was made and breathed a great sigh of relief when we got until 30th June 2008 to sort out our affairs. (I know it only applied to second provisional drivers but the heat was off all of us in reality).  I hounded the RSA for a test date, spend money on pre-tests and practiced with anyone who would come out with me.  I passed my test last January but if I hadn't I would have applied immediately for a second test and had a letter from employer to speed it up, I imagine I could even have had time for a third test if I had to re-sit.  My point is that we were told we were off the road, we got ample time to sort it out and from what I read in the press, many people just ignored it  - for those that did ignore, I have no sympathy.



... i.e. I'm all right Jack...

Would you expect us to have sympathy for you had you failed your test(s) - as 40% of the people in your position have done since last October.


----------



## wrappo

No I wouldn't at all and I think you are missing the point - my lack of sympathy extends to those who buried their heads in the sands and thought this would go away, they had plenty of time to be tested.


----------



## LouisLaLoope

ubiquitous said:


> ... i.e. I'm all right Jack...
> 
> Would you expect us to have sympathy for you had you failed your test(s) - as 40% of the people in your position have done since last October.


 
I don't think that's what Wrappo was trying to say.  I think s/he is referring to people who didn't actively try to get their stuff sorted.  And if people did organise their things in time and failed their test (however unfortunate), perhaps they shouldn't be driving unaccompanied...?


----------



## Caveat

LouisLaLoope said:


> I think s/he is referring to people who didn't actively try to get their stuff sorted


 
That's where my sympathy ends too. I commented on this months ago and got attacked for it. There are *plenty* of L drivers on their umpteenth provisionals, happily driving away, making absolutely no attempt to address their obvious shortcomings, deliberately missing tests, never taking lessons etc.

I have zero sympathy for these people.


----------



## paulo99

I noticed a car parked up where I live, they were diving on L Plates, car is now sitting here during day time. Looks like some people didn't just remove the L Plates and continue driving.


----------



## Peeete

Slaphead said:


> I've said it before and ill say it again, this new law is unfair in Ireland as there arnt other options available to a vast majority of ppl.
> I've a full licence and lived 11 yrs in Sweden where this law has been in force longer than anyone can remember but the difference there is that there are other options. I used to get up in the morning and decide how to travel depending on my mood, bike, train, bus, car or a combination of the above! I could go weeks without driving. Since i moved back last summer i've barely had a full 24hrs without driving.
> 
> It's just impracticle in this country and all those on their high horses thinking this is great should try a month or even a week without a car and get back to us.



Slaphead - do you think it is acceptable that certified incompotent drivers (who have been tested - and failed) are allowed to continue driving on our public roads. This law is not unfair - it is common sense. Surely the testing system has to mean something. How do people who can't afford a car or are under 17 get by? They have to make alternative arrangements. I agree public transport is nowhere near where it should be, but this doesn't give us the right to ignore the safety of the general public (and a person who has failed an exam for compotence in driving must be some danger).


----------



## Slaphead

LouisLaLoope said:


> So, because Ireland has let us down regarding public transport, we should be allowed to drive unlawfully?



Until such a time as other options are available then the law should never have been changed. I presume a "right to transport" or something is pretty high up on most people's list of rights.

Can you imagine being single and living in the country, what do you do until you get your licence? Walk from A to B? Bearing in mind the roads arnt even suitable for walkers!

My solution to this whole mess would be to allow a period of dispention, allow ppl apply for the right to drive unaccompanied to nearest town, within a 20 mile radius of home etc. Also crack down extra hard on them for speeding etc. In 20 yrs time the law might suit Ireland, but not at the moment. Like i said i lived with it in Sweden for 11 yrs, the law is fine, just not suitable for here.


----------



## Peeete

paulo99 said:


> I noticed a car parked up where I live, they were diving on L Plates, car is now sitting here during day time. Looks like some people didn't just remove the L Plates and continue driving.



If the car is sitting there - would this not suggest that they are not driving unnaccomonied


----------



## Slaphead

Peeete said:


> Slaphead - do you think it is acceptable that certified incompotent drivers (who have been tested - and failed) are allowed to continue driving on our public roads. This law is not unfair - it is common sense. Surely the testing system has to mean something. How do people who can't afford a car or are under 17 get by? They have to make alternative arrangements. I agree public transport is nowhere near where it should be, but this doesn't give us the right to ignore the safety of the general public (and a person who has failed an exam for compotence in driving must be some danger).



I agree, the law is fair and common sense, the law isnt the problem. Very few ppl in this country cant afford a car and u17's usually have parents to drive them and their travel needs are rarely as pressing or as frequent as a working 18yr old.

How is an 18 yr old who just did his leaving and lives at home and just got a new job in a shop 20 miles a way going to get to work every day? Mammy works 20 miles the other direction, theirs no bus? Simple, he'll have to stay at home, draw the dole.


----------



## Peeete

Slaphead said:


> Until such a time as other options are available then the law should never have been changed. I presume a "right to transport" or something is pretty high up on most people's list of rights.
> 
> Can you imagine being single and living in the country, what do you do until you get your licence? Walk from A to B? Bearing in mind the roads arnt even suitable for walkers!
> 
> My solution to this whole mess would be to allow a period of dispention, allow ppl apply for the right to drive unaccompanied to nearest town, within a 20 mile radius of home etc. Also crack down extra hard on them for speeding etc. In 20 yrs time the law might suit Ireland, but not at the moment. Like i said i lived with it in Sweden for 11 yrs, the law is fine, just not suitable for here.



What if you are under the current driving age and living in the country - do they also have a right to public transport and because its not there have the right to drive?

In 20 years there will still be no public transport to all rural areas - this would be completely unfeasible. Younger people will grow up knowing they need a car - they need to get provisional  - take lessons - become a compodent driver - do test - after passing test - then use car - become dependent etc....


----------



## elefantfresh

> My solution to this whole mess would be to allow a period of dispention



Erm...did we not just do this?


----------



## Slaphead

cerbera1 said:


> Slaphead, I agree with you totally about the lack of public transport and poor quality of service we do have, but quite simply anyone who fails a few tests cannot be deemed to be a safe driver regardless of what they need the car for. Any moron can get into a car and make it go, and at such a speed that it kills or seriously injures someone and cause grief for so many people as a result. And I’m not getting on my high horse, I bought a car at 17 and drove it around on a provisional, however I passed my test on my second attempt at 18, and after 2 crashes (minor, rear ending stuff). Looking back I was sorry that the current clamp down was not in place then as it would have saved me financially as I paid up to avoid higher premiums. The fact remains that no learner driver should be driving without a competent fully licensed driver. Learner driver have more minor bumps and near misses that are not recorded statistically as they are just “settled” mutually between the 2 parties.



I was mid twenties and had a kid before i got my licence in sweden, before that i never drove unacompanied, it was unthinkable. But it wasnt a problem as i still could get around. You just cant survive in this country without a car like you can in other countries. Until such a time as you can laws like this are plain unworkable.
I know a lad at work, foreign chap who has failed his test a few times and now has to drive illegaly the 50 mile trip to work. What other option does he have? There is no bus, we cant car pool as we all finnish different times and irregular shifts, weekends, nights etc.


----------



## Peeete

Slaphead said:


> I agree, the law is fair and common sense, the law isnt the problem. Very few ppl in this country cant afford a car and u17's usually have parents to drive them and their travel needs are rarely as pressing or as frequent as a working 18yr old.
> 
> How is an 18 yr old who just did his leaving and lives at home and just got a new job in a shop 20 miles a way going to get to work every day? Mammy works 20 miles the other direction, theirs no bus? Simple, he'll have to stay at home, draw the dole.



Or live nearer his/her job - as an alternative. Jobs don't always come to people, some people go to the jobs

Quote: I know a lad at work, foreign chap who has failed his test a few times and now has to drive illegaly the 50 mile trip to work. What other option does he have? There is no bus, we cant car pool as we all finnish different times and irregular shifts, weekends, nights etc.

He could also live closer to his job.


----------



## Slaphead

elefantfresh said:


> Erm...did we not just do this?



6 month is not what i mean, read the whole post(this is the high horse attitude i referred to earlier). Allow ppl to drive certain areas etc.


----------



## LouisLaLoope

Slaphead said:


> Until such a time as other options are available then the law should never have been changed.


 
The law wasn't changed, as far as I'm aware.  It has just started to be enforced.  So the law was always there, drivers without a full licence were driving unlawfully for years and presumably knew so.

Surely there has to be some element of individual responsibility?  Why did such drivers not apply for their tests?  Did they intend on driving without a full licence indefinitely?


----------



## Slaphead

Peeete said:


> Or live nearer his/her job - as an alternative. Jobs don't always come to people, some people go to the jobs



What if it's only for a few months? Or they cant afford it?


----------



## Slaphead

LouisLaLoope said:


> Surely there has to be some element of individual responsibility?  Why did such drivers not apply for their tests?  Did they intend on driving without a full licence indefinitely?



Most ppl have done it, but failed, sometimes unfairly.
My bro passed his first time, he will admit himself that he's a brutal driver then and still is, doesnt know how he passed it.


----------



## Peeete

Slaphead said:


> What if it's only for a few months? Or they cant afford it?



Could they not rent for a couple of months. I can't break the laws and endanger people just because it suits me. Other people can't either.


----------



## Slaphead

Peeete said:


> Or live nearer his/her job - as an alternative. Jobs don't always come to people, some people go to the jobs
> 
> Quote: I know a lad at work, foreign chap who has failed his test a few times and now has to drive illegaly the 50 mile trip to work. What other option does he have? There is no bus, we cant car pool as we all finnish different times and irregular shifts, weekends, nights etc.
> 
> He could also live closer to his job.



He's making arrangements to do so, but he's got 5 kids and bought a house where he is and in the current climate it will take him a while to sell it. He's putting in overtime to cover the €1000 fine if and when it comes!


----------



## Slaphead

Peeete said:


> Could they not rent for a couple of months. I can't break the laws and endanger people just because it suits me. Other people can't either.



If that's the choice and the pay isnt great the chances are that the individual could opt to stay at home and draw the dole, easier and they'd probably earn on it.
Not a great result is it?


----------



## paulo99

Peeete said:


> If the car is sitting there - would this not suggest that they are not driving unnaccomonied


Correct, the inference has been that L Plate drivers would just remove plates and continue driving, not in this case.


----------



## Peeete

Slaphead said:


> He's making arrangements to do so, but he's got 5 kids and bought a house where he is and in the current climate it will take him a while to sell it. He's putting in overtime to cover the €1000 fine if and when it comes!



Could he not use the €1000 he is saving to pay for rent, pay for taxi's to take him to public transport - bus, train etc


----------



## elefantfresh

To be honest, i dont see this thread progressing much further. There are people on both sides of the fence and it seems that we can't see each other! 
Ho hum....


----------



## LouisLaLoope

Posters seem to be complaining because they're not allowed to break the law any more!  This country is crazy!

And someone asked a good question earlier and I'm not sure if it was answered.  What do people do when they can't afford a car?  How do they manage?  Maybe they should be allowed to steal a car then because there's no public transport and they need it to get to work.  We could ask the Gardai not to enforce the whole "theft" thing.

I await the backlash...  ;0)


----------



## Slaphead

Peeete said:


> Could he not use the €1000 he is saving to pay for rent, pay for taxi's to take him to public transport - bus, train etc



Yes he could, but he has a big family and likes to see them occasionally, and he can hardly afford a 2nd home!

6 months hasnt been enough for him, he moved down 2 or 3 yrs ago, failed his test several times since.


----------



## elefantfresh

> failed his test several times since.



This means he has been deemed unqualified to drive!!!!! Where is the argument??? He's proven to a tester "several times" that he is unfit to drive. Geez people....


----------



## LouisLaLoope

slaphead said:


> failed His Test Several Times Since.


 
:0)


----------



## Peeete

LouisLaLoope said:


> Posters seem to be complaining because they're not allowed to break the law any more!  This country is crazy!
> 
> And someone asked a good question earlier and I'm not sure if it was answered.  What do people do when they can't afford a car?  How do they manage?  Maybe they should be allowed to steal a car then because there's no public transport and they need it to get to work.  We could ask the Gardai not to enforce the whole "theft" thing.
> 
> I await the backlash...  ;0)



I agree with comment - posters appear to want to be able to break rule based on circumstance.

However as mentioned already post thread is probably not going to advance any further. We're just debating circumstance now.


----------



## Slaphead

LouisLaLoope said:


> Posters seem to be complaining because they're not allowed to break the law any more!  This country is crazy!



Did you ever drive unacompanied on a provisional? If so you havnt a leg to stand on. Law was fine to break while it suited you but now your qualified  you couldnt give a toss about others.


----------



## Slaphead

elefantfresh said:


> This means he has been deemed unqualified to drive!!!!! Where is the argument??? He's proven to a tester "several times" that he is unfit to drive. Geez people....


another high horse
Did you ever drive unaccompanied before you got your full licence?


----------



## elefantfresh

> Did you ever drive unaccompanied before you got your full licence?



Absolutly never. I did my driving in the UK as a youngster and you dont' break the law regarding this. And less of the high horse Slaphead please. If people fail their test several times why on earth should they be allowed drive alone for crying out loud. 
I give up.


----------



## Slaphead

cerbera1 said:


> He has failed it SEVERAL TIMES, you are just strengthening the arguement that learner drivers should not be on the road without a fully licenced driver. If someone fails several times he is obviously doing something wrong and a danger to himself and other road users, you say he likes to see his family, what if he was to kill himself or others because he is a danger on the road?? Anyone who gets driving lessons from a good instructor WILL pass the driving test, and if they fail they do not belong on the road, simple as. Driving laws are there for the safety of all and must be obeyed by all, not just obey them if they are convenient.



I know ppl who passed first time who cant drive, and i mean wouldnt dream of looking over their shoulder when changing lane. Passing the test seems to be a chance things some times.


----------



## Slaphead

elefantfresh said:


> Absolutly never. I did my driving in the UK as a youngster and you dont' break the law regarding this. And less of the high horse Slaphead please. If people fail their test several times why on earth should they be allowed drive alone for crying out loud.
> I give up.


 
Question applies to ppl who learned in Ireland. Anyone who has should show a bit of compassion to ppl who are in difficulties because of this.


----------



## truthseeker

Slaphead said:


> Question applies to ppl who learned in Ireland. Anyone who has should show a bit of compassion to ppl who are in difficulties because of this.


 
Why? Its been known for a long time now that this change was coming in, if someone keeps failing then they shouldnt be on the road anyway so why compassion?


----------



## Peeete

Slaphead said:


> I know ppl who passed first time who cant drive, and i mean wouldnt dream of looking over their shoulder when changing lane. Passing the test seems to be a chance things some times.



I've given up on this debate now too! This is a new area now - the compotence of testers.


----------



## jhegarty

elefantfresh said:


> This means he has been deemed unqualified to drive!!!!! Where is the argument??? He's proven to a tester "several times" that he is unfit to drive. Geez people....




Then we get into the question of how practical is the test...

I park my car every day , not on the test.... it's been many years since I passed my test and I haven't reversed around a corner since the day of the test...


----------



## Slaphead

Peeete said:


> I've given up on this debate now too! This is a new area now - the compotence of testers.



Its relevant, should ppl be grounded at home because perhaps a tester has an off day and vice versa? Some people seem to think that a driving licence means or guarantees that your a good or safe driver, far from it.
One good thing with this law is that accidents wont automatically get blambed on learners any more.


----------



## VonLinus

Slaphead said:


> Its relevant, should ppl be grounded at home because perhaps a tester has an off day and vice versa? Some people seem to think that a driving licence means or guarantees that your a good or safe driver, far from it.
> One good thing with this law is that accidents wont automatically get blambed on learners any more.




You've got to have some sort of testing scheme though. If you don't have people testing, what do you recommend?


----------



## Peeete

jhegarty said:


> Then we get into the question of how practical is the test...
> 
> I park my car every day , not on the test.... it's been many years since I passed my test and I haven't reversed around a corner since the day of the test...



The reversing around the corner - is not solely for the purpose of ascertaining your ability to reverse around a corner. It is to evaluate your overall control of the vehicle in challenging circumstances! For exampl - they can't simulate an accident and although this also doesn't simulate an accident it does measure your control and ability.


----------



## Slaphead

VonLinus said:


> You've got to have some sort of testing scheme though. If you don't have people testing, what do you recommend?



Agreed and the law is fine, but impractical in a country with no travel alternatives.


----------



## VonLinus

I'm reamed by the law, but it's long overdue, and in line with other countries. I know we can't have everything at once, like. We need the infrastructure, but we also need the law.


----------



## Thrifty1

Peeete said:


> The reversing around the corner - is not solely for the purpose of ascertaining your ability to reverse around a corner. It is to evaluate your overall control of the vehicle in challenging circumstances! For exampl - they can't simulate an accident and although this also doesn't simulate an accident it does measure your control and ability.


 

I thought it was also to simulate reversing into or out of a parking spot.


----------



## LouisLaLoope

Slaphead said:


> Did you ever drive unacompanied on a provisional? If so you havnt a leg to stand on. Law was fine to break while it suited you but now your qualified you couldnt give a toss about others.


 
I never ever ever drove unaccompanied until I had my full licence.  I don't want a medal for this, but it would appear that I now have two fine legs to stand on!

As for giving a toss about others, what on earth are you talking about?!  You cannot ask me to condone unlawful driving.  I don't want to be on the road with users who can't drive and have been deemed unsafe to drive alone.  I don't believe that's an unreasonable stance to take. 

I think I'm done.  This thread is getting ridiculous.  Can't someone close it down?


----------



## Slaphead

LouisLaLoope said:


> I never ever ever drove unaccompanied until I had my full licence.  I don't want a medal for this, but it would appear that I now have two fine legs to stand on!
> 
> As for giving a toss about others, what on earth are you talking about?!  You cannot ask me to condone unlawful driving.  I don't want to be on the road with users who can't drive and have been deemed unsafe to drive alone.  I don't believe that's an unreasonable stance to take.
> I think I'm done.  This thread is getting ridiculous.  Can't someone close it down?



Did you really learn to drive in Ireland and never drive alone!Have you ever held a phone in your hand while driving, went a fraction over the limit? Were all law breakers to some degree.
You want a thread closed because your being wobbled off your high horse.


----------



## Slaphead

cerbera1 said:


> Slaphead, Would you get on a plane with a pilot that could obviously make it fly and get you to where you wanted to go but for some reason or other he didn't pass his test???
> I think not.
> If forced into finding alternitive methods of travel people will find them, humans are very resourceful....... Why can't someone cycle the 10 or so miles to work. And if their job is dependant on driving there, well they have no other choice but to pass the test, spend his €1000 he saved for the fine on driving lessons.



Planes are slightly different. For the record i would like it to be a requirement to have a full pilots licence for anyone isolated in the country and planning on flying to work.
Have you tried cycling in this county? With all the legal drivers flying around?


----------



## briancbyrne

Peeete said:


> I've given up on this debate now too! This is a new area now - the compotence of testers.


 

I agree - maybe no more posts unless there is some infor from those / about those that have been stopped by the guards and the outcomes.


----------



## MrMan

> Did you really learn to drive in Ireland and never drive alone!Have you ever held a phone in your hand while driving, went a fraction over the limit? Were all law breakers to some degree.
> You want a thread closed because your being wobbled off your high horse.


Slaphead, your arguments are becoming less and less relevant. Holding a phone in your hand is against the law and people are 'done' for this, breaking the limit is against the law and again people are punished by law, so why should breaking the law regarding  'L' drivers require a different stance. You are actually arguing against yourself.

We can't continue to blame other reasons for our 'bending' of the rules. I bend them myself but if I'm caught I'm caught with only myself to blame, I don't think 'L' drivers can realistically expect any sympathy anymore especially when they are continually failing tests or worse again not even applying for tests.


----------



## LouisLaLoope

Slaphead said:


> Did you really learn to drive in Ireland and never drive alone!Have you ever held a phone in your hand while driving, went a fraction over the limit? Were all law breakers to some degree.
> You want a thread closed because your being wobbled off your high horse.


 
Thanks, Slaphead - you just made me laugh out loud!  Yeah, you're probably right.  I've gone over 50kph in a 50 zone.  I've taken one hand off the steering wheel when both should have been at the 10-2 position.  I've had an issue involving my blind spot.  I've probably squeezed an orange light in my time.  But I do have a hands-free phone kit, so, IN YOUR FACE!!!!

In fairness, though, the Gardai should probably kick me off the road and let all the learners loose.  I just don't know what I was thinking!

And what's with the high horse thing?  You've got a bit of an equine buzz going on there, eh?!  Ah, I'm just teasing.  But I am done.  

Good luck with your tests, people!


----------



## Slaphead

LouisLaLoope said:


> In fairness, though, the Gardai should probably kick me off the road and let all the learners loose.  I just don't know what I was thinking!



Probably, uptight drivers are normally the most dangerous.


----------



## truthseeker

Slaphead said:


> Probably, uptight drivers are normally the most dangerous.


 
hmmmmmm...that comment has all the marks of a personal attack - perhaps you should read the posting guidelines slaphead? you dont strengthen your argument by insulting other posters......


----------



## Slaphead

truthseeker said:


> hmmmmmm...that comment has all the marks of a personal attack - perhaps you should read the posting guidelines slaphead? you dont strengthen your argument by insulting other posters......



Not a personal attack, referring to all such drivers.


----------



## Slaphead

cerbera1 said:


> I have tried cycling, and to great success, as in I'm still alive. But that is besides the point. The fact is that this law is being enforced now. It was to be enforced last december however there was a big kick up about test waiting times so they employed more testers and got the waiting time down to 7 weeks at most and yet again we have people kicking up, if it was put back to a year, 2 years or more there would be people kicking up a stink even after that length of time. 6 months is more than enough time to pass a test or make alternitive arrangements for travel if they fail. I drive for a living and see learner drivers on their own sometimes with kids in the car with no clue how to drive. You can't differentiate between learners who just can't pass a test because of nerves or an off day and learners who just can't drive safely and this is the only solution. Until a driver passes a test they can't drive alone. SIMPLE



I used to love cycling to work, far prefer it to driving, but i wouldnt fancy it in this country.


----------



## MrMan

> I used to love cycling to work, far prefer it to driving, but i wouldnt fancy it in this country.



It looks like the real problem here is with the country, what restrictions do we have with cycling?


----------



## Slaphead

MrMan said:


> It looks like the real problem here is with the country, what restrictions do we have with cycling?



No bicycle paths, generally unsafe to go on a road here on a bike. A lot of its due to the fact that bikes are so rare you dont expect them. The town i lived in before was a student town, bikes whizzing around everywhere but you knew what it was like and expected them so it was rarely a problem. If i worked in the town i live i'd definitely take the bike however. As it is i have a 60 mile commute, maybe reduced to 15 in 6 months or so.


----------



## VonLinus

Slaphead said:


> No bicycle paths, generally unsafe to go on a road here on a bike. A lot of its due to the fact that bikes are so rare you dont expect them. The town i lived in before was a student town, bikes whizzing around everywhere but you knew what it was like and expected them so it was rarely a problem. If i worked in the town i live i'd definitely take the bike however. As it is i have a 60 mile commute, maybe reduced to 15 in 6 months or so.




Not to mention the rotten drivers.


----------



## Slaphead

VonLinus said:


> Not to mention the rotten drivers.



Well that to, a lot of roads on this country arnt wide enough for 2 cars and a bike.


----------



## thundercat

Slaphead said:


> Well that to, a lot of roads on this country arnt wide enough for 2 cars and a bike.



This is actually true.
I sometimes drive and sometimes cycle.
Cycling is a nightmare in this country. The majority of drivers assume the road is only for them and constantly block me off and I don't know how many times I've nearly been killed by driver's making sudden left turns etc.
It would be great if everyone could cycle to work even once ever just to see what it's like. Manners would improve ten-fold.


----------



## Iceman732

Hassellhoff, 27 cases? Really now that's amazing. How many provisional drivers are there? 300,000 and to think 27 cases were brought to court last year, I'm stunned!

Your poor niece would be well advised to take no notice of you. 'Ask the insurance company for a letter!!' As if they'd ever do anything like that.


----------



## NicolaM

Iceman732 said:


> Hassellhoff, 27 cases? Really now that's amazing. How many provisional drivers are there? 300,000 and to think 27 cases were brought to court last year, I'm stunned!.


A bit unfortunate if you were one of the 27 cases however surely? (presumably having paid for insurance, but now being stuck with a personal liability for payment of costs incurred/damages etc)


----------



## sam h

jhegarty said:


> I park my car every day , not on the test.... it's been many years since I passed my test and I haven't reversed around a corner since the day of the test...


 
I actually use this skill several times every day.....mainly for parking my car (for both parallel parking & reversing into regular spots) & reversing into my driveway.  Because I guarentee if you can't do the simplier monoveur of reversing around a corner, you won't have a hope of parallel parking.


----------



## Graham_07

sam h said:


> I actually use this skill several times every day.....mainly for parking my car (for both parallel parking & reversing into regular spots) & reversing into my driveway. Because I guarentee if you can't do the simplier monoveur of reversing around a corner, you won't have a hope of parallel parking.


 
It's interesting to note how many people drive into their driveway and reverse out. It's both safer and easier I think to reverse in. ( and theres some legal thing about reversing out onto a main road anyway ) My wife got into the habit too and from the start I instructed my son to do same. It becomes so second nature that you easily do it on mirrors alone. 

It's interesting also that parallel parking is not a driving test item. It's probably the most used parking manoeuvre too.


----------



## rmelly

Graham_07 said:


> It's both safer and easier I think to reverse in. ( and theres some legal thing about reversing out onto a main road anyway )


 
Yes, but how many people live on a main road? I also think you're overstating the safety aspect.


----------



## NicolaM

rmelly said:


> Yes, but how many people live on a main road? I also think you're overstating the safety aspect.


Well...lots of people do actually.
I see people reversing out of driveways on the way to work, on to main roads, every day.
Very unsafe.
The reason they do it I guess is because it is quite hard to manage to reverse into a driveway from main road traffic, in rush hour (when they are travelling home from work presumably).
Nicola


----------



## rmelly

NicolaM said:


> Well...lots of people do actually.


 
Not that many as a % of the entire population.


----------



## NicolaM

rmelly said:


> I also think you're overstating the safety aspect.


Regardless, even if it is only 5% of the population, it is still a very unsafe thing to do.
Also illegal: "_You *must* not reverse from a minor road onto a major road as it is unsafe to do so_"(RSA.ie)
Nicola


----------



## truthseeker

rmelly said:


> Not that many as a % of the entire population.


 
Even if its only a tiny percentage doing the actual reversing onto main roads they are affecting a much larger percentage of road users who are using the main roads that are being reversed onto!


----------



## sam h

Doesn't matter if you live on a main road or not, much safer & easier to reverse in and drive out.  Your vision of the road & potential hazzards is far better.  

It's also much easier to get into a parking space by reversing.  

I'd advise any learner driver to do this all of the time & then they will have no difficulty doing their "reverse around the corner".


----------



## foxylady

elefantfresh said:


> I understand what you're saying and this is why the government did a total u-turn 6-8 months ago whenever it was - learner drivers have had that long to get off their arses and learn how to drive - this did NOT sneak up on anyone did it? Surely to goodness 6-8 months is more than enough time to apply and pass a test isnt it?


 
You would think that wouldnt you, but some of us have been waiting longer than that. I applied last july, got date for 1st july this year and then it was cancelled due to tester being sick so where does that leave me . new test date is end august, thats over a year waiting.


----------



## rmelly

Have to be honest here, I'm driving 8 years and have never learnt to parallel park and have never reversed into a parking space/driveway.


----------



## Vanilla

An enterprising woman in Castleisland, Co. Kerry is hiring herself out to sit with provisional drivers so they can still drive ( she has full licence).


----------



## rmelly

very good - does she call over to the person needing to be accompanied (e.g. by bike or taxi), or are they expected to drive to her? (which would defeat the porpose...). One of those foldup bikes would be handy for her.


----------



## Peeete

Vanilla said:


> An enterprising woman in Castleisland, Co. Kerry is hiring herself out to sit with provisional drivers so they can still drive ( she has full licence).


 
Also, she must be insured to drive their car also.


----------



## starlite68

Peeete said:


> Also, she must be insured to drive their car also.


i dont think she has to be insured to drive the car...just to have a full licence for over a year.   open to correction though.


----------



## Gondola

Just to go back to the percentage of failed tests, I read in one of the posts above that it is about 40% overall. Does anyone know what is the failure rate in gov test centres vs. failure rate in private test centres?

Also, a friend was looking for a list of private test centres in Dublin. Any idea where I can find a list?

Thanks


----------



## shesells

starlite68 said:


> i dont think she has to be insured to drive the car...just to have a full licence for over a year.   open to correction though.



You need to have a full licence for over TWO years. Not sure about the insurance thing,


----------



## macnas

rmelly   she would drive over?


----------



## Gondola

I found all of the information I was looking for (including pass % rates for each of the driving test centres locations) on [broken link removed]. 
I am not able to find information on 'private test centres', though. 
Anyone know where I should look?


----------



## Peeete

shesells said:


> You need to have a full licence for over TWO years. Not sure about the insurance thing,



The accompanying person does need to be insured to drive the car. The reason for having the accompanying person is that they can take over the driving if required. This also means that they can't be over the legal limit - but there are some technical issues around this issue.


----------



## rmelly

macnas said:


> rmelly she would drive over?


 
In whose car, her own? Then how does she get back to it? Taxi etc?

The service wouldn't be much use for people going to work, it would only work if they were returning home on the trip so she can get back to her car easily.


----------



## dem_syhp

With respect to the licenced driver being over the limit, I heard of someone today who did get stopped and the licenced driver (not driving, accompanying learner) was breathalised.  All was fine and above board - so technicalities didn't need to be tested.  I never drink and drive, but if I was the licenced driver I might be a bit more relaxed and have maybe two 

One to be aware of if you're accompanying someone else - doesn't come up as an issue for me, so maybe it's just because I haven't thought about it.  I understand the logic of it, but I'd feel very hard done by getting done if I wasn't driving!


----------



## Complainer

Peeete said:


> The accompanying person does need to be insured to drive the car. The reason for having the accompanying person is that they can take over the driving if required.


She could have open driving on her own policy, so she wouldn't necessarily need to be on the policy of the car being driven. This would only give her 3rd party cover, mind you - no comprehensive. She'd also need to make sure that her own insurers are covering her for this commercial activity.


----------



## Peeete

Complainer said:


> She could have open driving on her own policy, so she wouldn't necessarily need to be on the policy of the car being driven. This would only give her 3rd party cover, mind you - no comprehensive. She'd also need to make sure that her own insurers are covering her for this commercial activity.


 
This is as I stated - she doesn't need to be on the cars policy but she must be covered to drive the vehicle. As you say, there may be commercial implicaions for insurance - it is one to be careful with


----------



## Peeete

dem_syhp said:


> With respect to the licenced driver being over the limit, I heard of someone today who did get stopped and the licenced driver (not driving, accompanying learner) was breathalised. All was fine and above board - so technicalities didn't need to be tested. I never drink and drive, but if I was the licenced driver I might be a bit more relaxed and have maybe two
> 
> One to be aware of if you're accompanying someone else - doesn't come up as an issue for me, so maybe it's just because I haven't thought about it. I understand the logic of it, but I'd feel very hard done by getting done if I wasn't driving!


 
I believe the techincality affects the actual driver and not the accompanying person. As I understand it, if the accompanying person is over the limit then the driver is deemed to be unaccompanied - i.e. they have no capable person to drive (if the needs arise). It is then possible that the driver could be prosecuted. In that case the driver could claim ignorance of the drinking.... This is where the difficulty lies


----------



## dem_syhp

Ahh.... that makes sense.  

Thanks


----------



## starlite68

Peeete said:


> The accompanying person does need to be insured to drive the car. The reason for having the accompanying person is that they can take over the driving if required. This also means that they can't be over the legal limit - but there are some technical issues around this issue.


 what a stupid law......i wonder what brainbox civil servant thought that one up.


----------



## rmelly

I'd have said it was actually reasonably clever, and that the alternative of not requiring it (or indeed the laws that governed provisionals up until now) were the stupid laws. Nice to see some 'joined-up thinking' for a change.

May of the posters (not necessarially you starlite68) on this and similar threads seem to misunderstand the concept of a provisional licence / learners permit.


----------



## xb_deai

161 posts and not 1 person saying they got caught worth the risk I'd say


----------



## mathepac

xb_deai said:


> 161 Posts And Not 1 Person Saying They Got Caught Worth The Risk I'd Say


163...


----------



## rmelly

I think he was only counting responses (not the oringinal post), and not including his own response as it didn't exist at the time...


----------



## Yachtie

In many countries, provisional licenses don't even exist and no one is legally permitted to operate a vehicle without having passed series of driving tests (theory and practice). 

For example, in some of the European countries, it is mandatory to pass not only Rules of the Road and medical to qualify for driving lessons. Nobody can take a test unless they have 40 hours driving tuition with a state certified instructor. This also costs in the region of €1,500. 

However, it's been like that for decades and the system works. I know that some of you will object to such strict driver instruction and licensing but please bear in mind that the motor vehicle is one of the most dangerous weapons known to man. 

Personally I agree with the provisional drivers crack-down. I think that only a small percentage of provisional license holders genuinely didn't get around to doing their test and the majority are taking the p!ss. How can we be safe on the roads if they are crowded with people who technically haven't got a clue what they are doing???


----------



## starlite68

if you look at the stats you will see that only a very small number of road accidents involve L drivers.....most crashes ect... are caused by us so called"experinced"drivers.


----------



## Peeete

starlite68 said:


> if you look at the stats you will see that only a very small number of road accidents involve L drivers.....most crashes ect... are caused by us so called"experinced"drivers.



If such L drivers are this good at driving (as this statement suggests) then they have little to worry about as they will pass their tests with flying colours.

ps and will then turn into the poor driver category (again from the above statement)!!

Its also important how you intepret statistics - what stsat are these mentioned above. Is it the number of crashes in a given period of time? If so you would always expect the L drivers to have a significantly lower number because of the fact there are fewer L drivers than fully licensed drivers on the road - i.e. 100,000 L drivers versus ?? (millions) of fully licensed.

If such statistics were to be more accurate (and maybe the one above is) they should should have the percentage of accidents per number in that grouping used.

For argument sake if there are (in one year):

100,000 L drivers
1,000,000 fully licensed drivers

1,000 L driver accidents
5,000 fully licensed accidents

This would entail - 1% accident rate for L drivers, 0.5% for fully licensed drivers.

Depending on how this information was presented would give different pictures!!


----------



## europhile

starlite68 said:


> if you look at the stats you will see that only a very small number of road accidents involve L drivers.....most crashes ect... are caused by us so called"experinced"drivers.



How many times does it have to be pointed out to people that there are far fewer learner drivers in the country?  Compare like with like.


----------



## kramer2006

sam h said:


> I actually use this skill several times every day.....mainly for parking my car (for both parallel parking & reversing into regular spots) & reversing into my driveway.  Because I guarentee if you can't do the simplier monoveur of reversing around a corner, you won't have a hope of parallel parking.



Well said Sam! What a lot of drivers (learner and non-learner) don't seem to realise is that the test's "reverse around a corner" maneouvre is supposed to demonstrate that the candidate can control the car while reversing and show the correct observance. How many times do we have to hear the nonsensical comment: "the reverse maneouvre is stupid, I've never done this since I passed my test!". Wake up people!


----------



## starlite68

europhile said:


> How many times does it have to be pointed out to people that there are far fewer learner drivers in the country? Compare like with like.


 i was talking about it on a percentage basis......i thought you would have understood.


----------



## rmelly

starlite68 said:


> i was talking about it on a percentage basis......i thought you would have understood.


 
Fair enough - do you have the statistics on this?


----------



## Peeete

starlite68 said:


> i was talking about it on a percentage basis......i thought you would have understood.



Starlite - can you provide a link to this information? It would be interesting reading.


----------



## euroDilbert

Following Starlite's comment, I had a look on the RSA's site :

http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/

Which has lots of accident statistics, but nothing on learners vs full-licence holders.

So, I would also be interested to see the figures.


----------



## sparkeee

gerrem off the road,zero alcohol tolerance,crush the cars if no valid insurance.


----------



## shesells

the figures don't matter surely. The law is there (no going back), time to stop pontificating and deal with it!


----------



## Peeete

shesells said:


> the figures don't matter surely. The law is there (no going back), time to stop pontificating and deal with it!



I would still be interested to find out the figures. Nnd not just with respect to L drivers but in total. 

Hoping that starlite68 provides us with them or where I can get them.


----------



## rmelly

This one seems to come up in all threads about learner drivers, so it'd be nice to put it to rest once and for all, either way.


----------



## europhile

Agreed.  It doesn't have the ring of truth about it.

There's also the fact that a lot of people who possess provisional licences don't ever get behind the wheel of a car.


----------



## briancbyrne

sparkeee said:


> gerrem off the road,zero alcohol tolerance,crush the cars if no valid insurance.


 
why not line em up against a wall and have done with it ??


----------



## Luckycharm

A girl in my missus work got caught and her car impounded!!


----------



## WaterSprite

Luckycharm said:


> A girl in my missus work got caught and her car impoded!!



That could mean "impounded" or "imploded" - I'm going to amuse myself and pretend it's "imploded"


----------



## macnas

Was it a banger?   Maybe it exploded?


----------



## sandrat

hands up anyone who now has a full licence that drove unaccompanied on first provisional?


----------



## helan72

me - was 18 and didnt have a car of my own - had to borrow parents and was not allowed near it without one of them. made me sit my test very very quickly - didnt pass it first time and my mam drove me home from the centre - applied the same day for a retest and passed the second time round.


----------



## helan72

sorry misread your post sandrat


----------



## shesells

sandrat said:


> hands up anyone who now has a full licence that drove unaccompanied on first provisional?


 
Not me. But then again on my 1st provisional I only had access to my parents car which was never around unless they were!


----------



## rmelly

> _hands up anyone who now has a full licence that drove unaccompanied on first provisional?_




no, but I pretty much never drove at all on my first provisional, by the time I started I had just gotten my second (and a new car), so could drive unaccompanied legally...


----------

