Printable View
Just wondering if you can get penalty points on a provisional driving licence?
I got a provisional licence ages ago and done a few lessons and all that but
never really got the hang of it. Thinking of giving it another go so just wondering
if I get points if i fcuk up?
Yep, Miss Dodge got points for speeding on her provisional. She's got a full license now and they carry across.
theres even more penalty points on offer for provisional license drivers than there is for drivers with a full license, i.e. unless you are on your second provisional you cannot driver without an accompying person who has the full licence.etc,etc...
They should get rid of the provisional in the first place. you should not be allowed on the road until you have passed your test in my view.
Ridiculous comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
You not be allowed to drive with provisional unsupervised. This is common in most Western countries. The irish situation is ludicrous - foreigners laugh when informed but hardly needs any debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
You aren't, with your first and third (at least that was the situation before).Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
It's the non-enforcement of it that's laughable.
Why should there be a difference between 2nd & 3rd provisional?Quote:
Originally Posted by noby
Logic seems to be that on 2nd provisional you can drive unsupervised as only failed test once but its ok on 3rd provisional because now failed the test twice.
:confused: :rolleyes:
You can have two provisional licences before you have to sit the test.
First - New inexperienced river
Second - Two years experience - ok to drive on your own
Third - Failed the test.
This is what I think the thinking behind it is; that's not to say I agree with it.
Maybe it's all changed since I had a provisional, though (about 6 or so years ago)
Provisional last for 2 years and you don't have to sit a test after the first one. The other point worth noting is the waiting time for tests. if they got that down to manageable timeframe, amybe they could look at tightening up.
Just to compare with the situation over here in Japan............Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
There is no provisional licence system. So it is impossible to (legally) get any experience on the road before getting a full licence.
There are two ways to get a licence...........
First way : You go and take a driving test just like most countries. (only problem is they routinely fail about 90% of applicants)
Second way : Go to a driving school and take 20 to 30 lessons, each contaning a certain skill to be mastered. Once you have successfully completed the school's course, you are given a certificate which means you no longer need to take the practical part of the driving test. This is how about 95% of people get a licence. Only problem...............the course will cost at least 2,500 euros.
My one regret before comng here is not getting a licence at home.
(oh, and not studying any Japanese!!)
Yep them Japanese certainly have great common sense. altough the price is a bit steep. Something along these lines should be implemented hereQuote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
The cost of insuring a shíte 1l micra? Seems reasonable to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Block G Raptor
Yep and you'll be paying out the 2.5 grand around the same time as insuring(and probably buying)your sh1t 1.0 Micra it all adds up to a hefty payout either way. unless it were to be made compulsory cant see to many people going for it at that price. 10 lessons with a driving instructor costs around 300 quidQuote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Sounds like they have it by the balls to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
No bad thing to lighten any prospective new drivers wallet by 2 or 3 grand. Might make them lower their sights a little in terms of what class of vehicle they're looking to buy.
Sounds like they have it by the balls to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
No bad thing to lighten any prospective new drivers wallet by 2 or 3 grand. Might make them lower their sights a little in terms of what class of vehicle they're looking to buy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Sorry how is that a ridculous comment. It is ridieculour that in this country you can fail a test that is there to determine if you can drive or not, andyou can drive out the door afterwards even thoug you have failed it. You should not be on the road if you have not passed the test. I have not passed my test or do I drive so I am not commenting from a smug position as its all ahead of me. But if we had a system like Japan where you had to to lessons at school maybe or you learn to drive that way and you are fully educated before you set foot on the road. Here you can just get the provisional and drive away and the way it is policed means you dont really need a passanger beside you. This is leading to more road accidents that otherwise occur.
The driving test is a poor test of ability so if you cannot even pass that doesn't say much for ability & should not be driving unaccompanied.
Government should advertise for driving testers tomorrow, double the numbers as there is huge demand & no chance not be suitable busy. If the unions moan tell them to p!ss off & sack them.
the government have an embargo on new driving testers, like all civil servants.
but its easier to somehow blame the unions isnt it pete.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Block G Raptor
To be honest, the sandard of driving still isnt great here, although there are very few fatal accidents.
There are a lot of "how did that idiot ever get a licence" comments but you get those in every country.
All Provisional Drivers Licences should be decommissioned now.
Well done pete, do exactly what the unions have been calling for for years. Cullen delayed the whole thing by pushing for privatisation that the Labour Court found was a breach of the last national wage agreement and the Government then came up with the Dept of Agriculture staff as they've tied their own hands with regard to Public Sector numbers. But somehow it's all the unions fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
The solution is the obvious one, which this Government is fundamentally opposed - employing more people in the areas that need them!
The problem there Macy is that if you hire enough staff to clear the backlog quickly you'll have a lot of idle staff once it's cleared. What's needed is a lot of temporary staff to clear the waiting list and a smaller number of permanant staff to make sure that it doesn't build back up.
The demand for driving tests is not temporary. Outsourcing in this case is privatisation by stealth and it is begining in other areas of the public service too.
Yes, but there is absolutely no reason why they couldn't have been employed as temporary public servants to clear the backlog (which would've lead a temp increase in the numbers), rather than try and privatise the whole process for ever (which is what cullen was trying to do, which the unions correctly disputed)Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
Bottom line, the whole mess is because of a failure to employ enough testers, which is a result of Government policy, which Cullen, Bryne and the right wing media have successfully managed to portray as being the unions fault. No embargo on recruitment, no crisis brought about by not enough staff to meet demand. See also Road Traffic Enforcement brought about by lack of Gardai.
Fair point, Macy, about the temporary staff.
Are you correct when you say that he's trying to outsource the whole thing forever? My understanding (from the media, right wing or otherwise) is that he wanted to outsource 40,000 tests. Do you know more than I do or are you extrapolating his motives from there?
The unions came up with a plan which would presumably have worked but what you have to remember is that the unions weren't elected to run this country. The government is in charge of coming up with these plans and the unions blocked the one they decided on without any strong (non-ideological*) reasons for doing so.
*note, I don't have much time for arguments about who's right wing and who's left wing.
The government's plan to privatise is an ideological one.
That is Cullens plan now, however originally it was open ended outsourcing.
The union only managed to block it by successfully arguing in the Labour Court that his original plan was against the National Wage Agreement (The Government signs up to this as one of the social partners). The unions have been backed into a corner and have had to accept this new limited outsourcing as the PR battle has been lost.
And sorry to harp on about it (but it's being totally ignored elsewhere)....
- The reason for the backlog is not enough testers.
- The reason for not enough testers is because of flawed Government policy of arbitrarily restricting public sector numbers that doesn't take into account the growing population.
- The reason for this Government policy is to create the right environment to out source the public service
- Purely on this issue, we can see this with both driver testing and enforcement.
Hire private contractors. I am sure they will be able to test more than average civil servants testers 3.5 people per day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roverstillidie
I have no problem hiring more civil servants as driving testers as there is huge demand & it is only growing so no chance that guys will have no work to do unless they just lazy. If somehow no work for them then introduce 10 year test.
Privatisation has the advantage that is possibly cheaper & more productive. I quote the figure of 3.5 tests per work day per tester which is just plain daft.
Youp;ve absolutely no basis for saying any group would be more productive than the other...
I am not saying all civil servants unproductive but 3.5 tests a day is a joke. Obviously would be no point contracting to the private sector at the same productivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Where did you get that figure?
There is a myth that needs to be dispelled about private enterprise - that it is more productive/efficient than publicly run services. Private enterprise is efficient at one thing I.E. MAKING PROFITS. This, more often than not does not mean a better service in fact it often means a worse service (as the example of privatised transport in Britain will testify to, or foundation hospitals, or privatised schools in thhe north.) A private company charged with driving testing would put the emphasis on churning out the tests one after the other with little regard for standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
If you ensure standards are set into their contracts then this cannot happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Ryanair v Aer Lingus
Air Coach v Bus Eireann
I could go on.
Are you saying Ryanair provides a better service than aerlingus? Given the choice I'd fly aerlingus every time.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
The only experience of Aircoach I have is trying to get one to Drogheda from the airport only to be told by the driver that he wasn't stopping in Drogheda even though it clearly said so on the timetable. Having said that comparing a company that serves one route only to one that serves the whole country is an unfair comparison.
Another example of the under staffing heading into the LRC this morning, where Our Lady of Lourdes will be crippled if staff do an overtime ban. But sure tax payer supported private hospitals are the only solution. :rolleyes:
Private companies do not get state funding so you just have to ensure no private monopolies like public ones. Competition is the customers friend. Anyway i think we going well off topic...
Thats where you're wrong mate. Private companies get massive subsidies from the state. Ryanair is a major recipient of taxpayer funded subsidies. Welfare for the rich is the term coined by Chomsky for such subsidies. That does not include the indirect subsidisation by the PAYE sector of the low level of corporation tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete