L drivers, cars taken

J_R · 11-05-2019 7:40pm

Marina Young Lodging wrote: »

when was that? pre 1964?

Hi,

Yes.

actually got two licences. First one, gave my proper age (18) and was therefore restricted to cars. About year later tried to hire a car in Dublin and was refused, was told needed to be 23. So trotted off to nearest motor tax office, . gave Dublin address of old ex girl friend, ticked the box for "over 21", I could then tick the boxes for all the categories, which I did and was handed my full licence.

Went to another car hire company, gave my age as 25, hired a car, a mini, had never sat behind the wheel of a car before, but of course knew how to drive as watched my father and brothers. By time I got home. 120 miles later, reckoned was an experienced driver.

Times have definitely changed

JohnMc1 · 11-05-2019 8:26pm

J_R wrote: »

That's nothing, I got my full licence, all categories for £1.00, took perhaps 10 minutes.

Back when you just had to fill out a form at the post office?

J_R · 11-05-2019 8:40pm

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Back when you just had to fill out a form at the post office?

Hi,

Yes, necessary to only fill in name and address, if under 21 had to input DOB, otherwise tick box for "Over 21" no ID whatsoever required.

Then tick few more boxes to a few simple questions, tender completed sheet with £1 and be given your licence there and then.

But think it was in Motor tax office

JohnMc1 · 11-05-2019 9:22pm

J_R wrote: »

Hi,

Yes, necessary to only fill in name and address, if under 21 had to input DOB, otherwise tick box for "Over 21" no ID whatsoever required.

Then tick few more boxes to a few simple questions, tender completed sheet with £1 and be given your licence there and then.

But think it was in Motor tax office

You're more likely right than me. I only knew about that from my Mom. She's 80 so ofcourse she might be off about it. The tests was implemented by the time i moved here.

ayux4rj6zql2ph · 11-05-2019 10:34pm

JohnMc1 wrote: »

You're more likely right than me. I only knew about that from my Mom. She's 80 so ofcourse she might be off about it. The tests was implemented by the time i moved here.

Testing came in during 1964

ayux4rj6zql2ph · 11-05-2019 10:34pm

J_R wrote: »

Hi,

Yes.

actually got two licences. First one, gave my proper age (18) and was therefore restricted to cars. About year later tried to hire a car in Dublin and was refused, was told needed to be 23. So trotted off to nearest motor tax office, . gave Dublin address of old ex girl friend, ticked the box for "over 21", I could then tick the boxes for all the categories, which I did and was handed my full licence.

Went to another car hire company, gave my age as 25, hired a car, a mini, had never sat behind the wheel of a car before, but of course knew how to drive as watched my father and brothers. By time I got home. 120 miles later, reckoned was an experienced driver.

Times have definitely changed

I can't even imagine what that system would be like, could you imagine something like that in this day and age

J_R · 12-05-2019 8:55am

JohnMc1 wrote: »

You're more likely right than me. I only knew about that from my Mom. She's 80 so ofcourse she might be off about it. The tests was implemented by the time i moved here.

Hi,

she could have posted the application form ?

But now not 100% certain myself. Was a few years ago and now that I am in my fifties memory not what it used to be

horse7 · 12-05-2019 9:07am

It would be great to see some stats on L drivers unaccompanied and accidents. I don't think all L drivers are unsafe to drive unaccompanied but I did have one crash into me straight out from a sideroad who was unaccompanied, the Garda were not interested as there was no one injured.

brightspark · 12-05-2019 10:43am

horse7 wrote:

It would be great to see some stats on L drivers unaccompanied and accidents. I don't think all L drivers are unsafe to drive unaccompanied but I did have one crash into me straight out from a sideroad who was unaccompanied, the Garda were not interested as there was no one injured.

The L drivers who are not "unsafe" should logically take and pass the driving test.

creedp · 14-05-2019 3:45pm

brightspark wrote: »

So when someone passes the test it is just because they were lucky, not because they have demonstrated their driving skills during the test?

Being able to react properly to people running across the road or cutting you off on a roundabout is part of that skill set.

Is bad luck the reason so many people fail the theory test too?

I didn't say that - Driving involves interacting with real people in the real world, be they pedestrians, cyclists or motorists, and that brings an element of luck to the equation.

But listen I know some drivers are perfect in every way

brightspark · 14-05-2019 4:05pm

creedp wrote: »

I didn't say that - Driving involves interacting with real people in the real world, be they pedestrians, cyclists or motorists, and that brings an element of luck to the equation.

But listen I know some drivers are perfect in every way

The only "element of luck" is that you might pass the test if you are not faced with a situation that you are not sufficiently competent to handle.

But as you say driving involves interacting with real people in the real world so not everyone gets tested as comprehensively as needed.

Perhaps a simulation element should be added to the process, that could test how a learner permit holder reacts to what as you say are real life situations.

Until then some will be "lucky" and pass even thought they don't really have all the skills required to avoid accidents.

creedp · 14-05-2019 5:11pm

brightspark wrote: »

The only "element of luck" is that you might pass the test if you are not faced with a situation that you are not sufficiently competent to handle.

But as you say driving involves interacting with real people in the real world so not everyone gets tested as comprehensively as needed.

Perhaps a simulation element should be added to the process, that could test how a learner permit holder reacts to what as you say are real life situations.

Until then some will be "lucky" and pass even thought they don't really have all the skills required to avoid accidents.

I don't want to get into a fruitless tit for tat on this but the most competent of drivers have 'accidents' which may or may not be caused by other drivers. If you are lucky you will avoid such 'accident'.

brightspark · 14-05-2019 5:59pm

creedp wrote: »

I don't want to get into a fruitless tit for tat on this but the most competent of drivers have 'accidents' which may or may not be caused by other drivers. If you are lucky you will avoid such 'accident'.

True,

I was involved in an accident some years ago.

On a national road the traffic ahead of me came to a stop, I stopped as did the cars behind me. A couple of minutes later the traffic started moving again, but soon afterwards for whatever reason it again stopped (cars ahead of me on a bend so I couldn't see what was causing the traffic ahead to stop)
I stopped without hitting the car in front of me (as did ALL the cars ahead of me), the driver behind me didn't stop and wrote off my car.

My stopping in time wasn't due to "luck", the driver failing to stop behind me wasn't due to "bad luck" it was due to lack of attention.

Now perhaps you could say I was unlucky to have an inattentive driver behind me (I did see in my rear view mirror that he wasn't slowing but I had no option of moving anywhere so I could not prevent the accident).

Or you could say the other driver was lucky that he hit a cheap old Honda and not a new BMW.

However the accident was caused by lack of attention, not luck.

Rechuchote · 15-05-2019 9:29am

horse7 wrote: »

It would be great to see some stats on L drivers unaccompanied and accidents. I don't think all L drivers are unsafe to drive unaccompanied but I did have one crash into me straight out from a sideroad who was unaccompanied, the Garda were not interested as there was no one injured.

Some stats here https://www.thejournal.ie/learner-drivers-unaccompanied-3893515-Mar2018/

Unaccompanied learner drivers were involved in 35 fatal car crashes in past four years

(Actually a low proportion of fatal crashes)

but looky here:

According to figures provided to RTÉ by the Road Safety Authority, 5.8% of all fatal crashes between 2014 to 2017 involved a learner driver.

However, just under 9% of all drivers in Ireland hold a learners permit.

My own hard line is that if you kill people with a car/bus/truck/van you should never be allowed to drive again. That would certainly and definitively bring down the number of crashes.

Henry Ford III · 17-05-2019 2:16pm

It really doesn't matter what the stats say. If a Learner driver wants to do so solo they must prove their ability to do so by passing the test.

Yes preparing for the test is expensive, waiting times can be long, and there may well be inferior drivers with full licenses out there, but unfortunately the system, as in many elements of our lives, isn't perfect and sometimes isn't even fair.

Maurice Yeltsin · 03-06-2019 2:20pm

brightspark wrote: »

The L drivers who are not "unsafe" should logically take and pass the driving test.

Hardly.

The driving test is effectively like asking someone to demonstrate how to walk. Nobody, absolutely nobody, drives around residential streets in a similar manner to the test. It's unatural. Not to mention conflicting information and opinions between your instructor and the tester.

It would be interesting to see what the pass rates would be if testers were to be made wear body cams.

I was amazed to find that around 1 in 12 motorists are still on a learner permit. While L plates displayed were never nearly as high as 1 in 12 they've become like hens teeth since the laws were brought in, all the young drivers are taking them down (I'm guessing the people on it years never displayed them)

I've yet to see a Garda twitter or televised car seizure which involved a car with L plates displayed, they seem to only target people they deem taking the piss by being evasive. Not set in stone obviously, but even driving unaccompanied kids are better off displaying them, get caught without and what is it, four points instead of a possible two? A single speeding citation in the following two years and off the road for what, six months?.

Government really need to meet half way, perhaps extend it to allowing unaccompanied driving after completing the 12 lessons? (although that in itself is a bit counter productive. I did my 12 lessons before I had a car and could barely pull out into traffic without stalling what with him shouting at me and aghast I'd learned nothing. I essentially taught myself how to drive, and looking back it would have been more ideal to start completely on my own, and THEN take the lessons, as rather than ticking off the basics it would be 12 attempts at driving to the ludicrous test standard)

pablo128 · 03-06-2019 2:32pm

Maurice Yeltsin wrote: »

Hardly.

The driving test is effectively like asking someone to demonstrate how to walk. Nobody, absolutely nobody, drives around residential streets in a similar manner to the test. It's unatural.

No it's not unnatural. If everyone drove the same way as they passed their test, there would be very few problems on our roads. Things like stay left, don't stop in a yellow box unless turning right, indicate in plenty of time EVERY TIME you intend to turn or change lane, check mirrors regularly, stop at red lights, give way at roundabouts, and many more.

Please point out which of those are unnatural.

Eggs For Dinner · 03-06-2019 2:54pm

Maurice Yeltsin wrote: »

Government really need to meet half way, perhaps extend it to allowing unaccompanied driving after completing the 12 lessons? (although that in itself is a bit counter productive. I did my 12 lessons before I had a car and could barely pull out into traffic without stalling )

Do you not see the contradiction there?

Isambard · 03-06-2019 2:59pm

It's amazing how many learner drivers think they are wonderful drivers and yet are unable to pass the test.

There is no way they will be back-pedalling now to allow unaccompanied driving, just get on and get through the test or stay off the road.

Varik · 03-06-2019 3:06pm

Just copy the A licence, can drive unaccompanied after getting a cert of Satisfactory Completion after doing a proper ibt course.

How the 12 lessons are run is just box ticking as it is.

Chances are the EU will do the same to the B license eventually.

splinter65 · 03-06-2019 3:07pm

Varik wrote: »

Just copy the A licence, can drive unaccompanied after getting a cert of Satisfactory Completion after doing a proper ibt course.

How the 12 lessons are run is just box ticking as it is.

I don’t understand this. Can you explain?

Maurice Yeltsin · 03-06-2019 3:12pm

pablo128 wrote: »

No it's not unnatural. If everyone drove the same way as they passed their test, there would be very few problems on our roads. Things like stay left, don't stop in a yellow box unless turning right, indicate in plenty of time EVERY TIME you intend to turn or change lane, check mirrors regularly, stop at red lights, give way at roundabouts, and many more.

Please point out which of those are unnatural.

Absolutely none of them. All are vitally important, and a few of them deserve automatic fails.

Reversing around a blind corner that opens on to someone's driveway isn't just unatural, it's dangerous. Try as you may you do not have a guaranteed full view, an animal or a small child could come out behind the car. At the very least if the move is to be demanded it should be done at a green area, end of terrace, not reversing over someone's driveway. Not to mention my insturctor (one I took right before tests) said to never move off if there's traffic or people at all visible- the tester marked me down for this one as I waited until the main road was completely empty. On a previous test I had to do it with such torrential rain falling I essentially had zero view out the back window save for the lights of approaching cars. It's a lottery.

Overly cautious right of way giving to approaching traffic is unatural, and also can depend on the mood of the tester who may mark you down for lack of progress.

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Do you not see the contradiction there?

I do :pac:

Fact remains, without having driven illegally for the guts of a year, I would NEVER have passed my test. Nobody can afford to have an instructor sit with them for the hundreds of hours it takes to get fully used to driving. Not everyone has a parent around to help them. So I did it. By following a few rules I largely avoided checkpoints (checking the checkpoint pages on FB before every trip, familiarising what roads are regular hotspots to avoid, never driving on a bank holiday weekend). Got used to it by hitting loops around the estate first, then hitting the main roads late at night when traffic would be quiet, progressed from there. Was driving better after a day on my own than I was after 12 lessons.

If the government really want to stamp this out they need to force home the importance of people being qualified to drive before they leave their family home. For people not living nearby it isn't an option.
Just two examples.

Varik · 03-06-2019 3:13pm

splinter65 wrote: »

I don’t understand this. Can you explain?

For a bike A licence the EU standardized it.

You do theroy test the same but then do a proper 3 day courses after which you can drive unoccupied. You do the test 6+ months later for full license.

dennyk · 03-06-2019 3:29pm

Maurice Yeltsin wrote: »

Government really need to meet half way, perhaps extend it to allowing unaccompanied driving after completing the 12 lessons?

This would only really work if the lessons had a pass/fail component as well. As it is, instructors can't refuse to sign off on lessons once given, so completing your lessons only means that you managed to find an instructor who thought getting more money out of you outweighed the danger to life and limb from riding in a car with you for twelve hours (as you discovered yourself).

That honestly might be a better system, actually; ditch the single driving test and make it a series of evaluated lessons instead, and once a student has passed all of their lessons successfully to the satisfaction of the instructor and the requirements of the RSA guidelines, they can get a license. Only downside is that it would require a lot more staff to handle the lessons internally, or some very strict regulation and significant oversight for private instructors/testers to ensure standards are consistent and to prevent shady instructors from abusing the system by refusing to pass students just to squeeze more money out of them.

AndrewJRenko · 03-06-2019 3:41pm

creedp wrote: »

I don't want to get into a fruitless tit for tat on this but the most competent of drivers have 'accidents' which may or may not be caused by other drivers. If you are lucky you will avoid such 'accident'.

You may have noticed how Gardai, RSA and other authorities don't use the term 'accident' any more. They talk about crashes or collisions. 'Accident' gives the impression that no-one is to blame, that it is was unavoidable, just one of those things, which is rarely true. The major causes of road crashes are clear from the research done by the RSA, which has similar findings to other countries - speeding, drink driving, fatigue and others.

Yes, it is possible to be involved in a crash through no fault of your own, but in general, one or other driver is at fault.

Isambard · 03-06-2019 3:42pm

far too open to abuse. No one does it that way and whilst we're in the EU we won't either.

Back in ancient days when i learnt, they reckoned you needed one lesson per year of your life. I actually did about 22 I think and never drove anything else before passing, never drove without my Instructor.

If you need a year driving illegally, you really aren't very good at it.

brightspark · 03-06-2019 3:42pm

dennyk wrote: »

This would only really work if the lessons had a pass/fail component as well. As it is, instructors can't refuse to sign off on lessons once given, so completing your lessons only means that you managed to find an instructor who thought getting more money out of you outweighed the danger to life and limb from riding in a car with you for twelve hours (as you discovered yourself).

That honestly might be a better system, actually; ditch the single driving test and make it a series of evaluated lessons instead, and once a student has passed all of their lessons successfully to the satisfaction of the instructor and the requirements of the RSA guidelines, they can get a license. Only downside is that it would require a lot more staff to handle the lessons internally, or some very strict regulation and significant oversight for private instructors/testers to ensure standards are consistent and to prevent shady instructors from abusing the system by refusing to pass students just to squeeze more money out of them.

You are effectively suggesting privatising the driving test.

Given how people feel the NCT is compromised by it's private nature (both passing substandard cars and failing acceptable cars have been reported), just why would privatising lead to a better system? (apart from increasing the amount of testers)

pablo128 · 03-06-2019 3:49pm

Maurice Yeltsin wrote: »

Absolutely none of them. All are vitally important, and a few of them deserve automatic fails.

Reversing around a blind corner that opens on to someone's driveway isn't just unatural, it's dangerous. Try as you may you do not have a guaranteed full view, an animal or a small child could come out behind the car. At the very least if the move is to be demanded it should be done at a green area, end of terrace, not reversing over someone's driveway. Not to mention my insturctor (one I took right before tests) said to never move off if there's traffic or people at all visible- the tester marked me down for this one as I waited until the main road was completely empty. On a previous test I had to do it with such torrential rain falling I essentially had zero view out the back window save for the lights of approaching cars. It's a lottery.

Overly cautious right of way giving to approaching traffic is unatural, and also can depend on the mood of the tester who may mark you down for lack of progress.

I do :pac:

Fact remains, without having driven illegally for the guts of a year, I would NEVER have passed my test. Nobody can afford to have an instructor sit with them for the hundreds of hours it takes to get fully used to driving. Not everyone has a parent around to help them. So I did it. By following a few rules I largely avoided checkpoints (checking the checkpoint pages on FB before every trip, familiarising what roads are regular hotspots to avoid, never driving on a bank holiday weekend). Got used to it by hitting loops around the estate first, then hitting the main roads late at night when traffic would be quiet, progressed from there. Was driving better after a day on my own than I was after 12 lessons.

If the government really want to stamp this out they need to force home the importance of people being qualified to drive before they leave their family home. For people not living nearby it isn't an option.
Just two examples.

You have 3 rear view mirrors on a car, plus you are allowed to turn around to look out the back when you are reversing. If you can't see a child or a car coming out of a driveway, you are not observant enough and need more practice. These scenarios you mentioned can happen when you have your full licence too and you should be competent enough to handle these situations.

As for being able to afford it? What if I got a provisional Truck licence and decided I couldn't afford lessons. Should I just drive a 20 ton truck regardless?

Maurice Yeltsin · 03-06-2019 4:05pm

pablo128 wrote: »

You have 3 rear view mirrors on a car, plus you are allowed to turn around to look out the back when you are reversing. If you can't see a child or a car coming out of a driveway, you are not observant enough and need more practice.

It is impossible to see entirely left, right, and underneath the boot at all times while reversing around a corner that has a driveway on the inside left, meaning a dog, cat or a toddler can easily run in to the path while not in view. I find it amazing that in this day and age of health and safety that the state requires motorists to pull such a dangerous, unnecessary move on a residential street. Particularly, as per my example, with rainfall so bad one can only see approaching car lights out the back window.

As for being able to afford it? What if I got a provisional Truck licence and decided I couldn't afford lessons. Should I just drive a 20 ton truck regardless?

I'm going to bet you drove alone. Everyone does, and did, and continues to do so, only now thanks to this lunatic law the vast majority of them have discarded their L plates, meaning people aren't giving them a wide enough berth on, for example, hill starts. I'm struggling to remember the last time I saw an L plate engaged in poor driving, yet you'd easily see a dozen clowns not bother indicating in a half hour on the M50.

If the government wants it stopped, start from the ground up, have it in school, hammer home the importance of learning to drive while you live with the parents rather than living miles away from them.

ayux4rj6zql2ph · 03-06-2019 4:06pm

Varik wrote: »

Just copy the A licence, can drive unaccompanied after getting a cert of Satisfactory Completion after doing a proper ibt course.

How the 12 lessons are run is just box ticking as it is.

Chances are the EU will do the same to the B license eventually.

Bikers need to do IBT before they ride alone, are you saying to modify the EDT for cars to allow this for them?

L drivers, cars taken

Comments