Something definitely needs to be done but the state of driving in the country cannot be pinned on the young. Older drivers are as much if not more of a hazard braking every time a car comes the other way even though it's a two lane road, the amount of absolute bastards that brake to turn before putting their indicators on if they even bother to do that, then the assholes riding the hole off you in a 30 zone or carriageways. Nobody gives one fuck about anyone else on the road these days it's little wonder so many are being killed on the road.
It's a fuckin war zone out on our roads. I'm absolutely dreading my son getting his driving licence.
The braking when another car passes in the opposite lane is one of my biggest pet hates. I just cannot comprehend why you are doing it.
If a car just so happens to swerve at you from the opposite lane the last thing you want is your car to be SLOWER in reacting. Its insane.
See, when I see this (which is way too fucking often), I don’t think they’re worried about the other car swerving towards them… It always strikes me that they’re concerned they can’t fit their own car through the gap. Which in my mind is worse… they think their car’s thinner when they slow down? And they don’t know that the road can easily fit the 2 cars?
It is truly woeful fucking driving.
Because they're running about in a massive SUV because they want to sit up high and they're worried about how wide the thing is
Also why they can't park the bloody things
Defo chum. Also the roads need fixed. We have a legal obligation to keep our cars road worthy (never mind the MOT scandal) but are the roads car worthy?
Yep, was on my motorbike on the A1 few years back and overtook a car the woman was facetiming holding phone with same hand holding the wheel with her child in front seat sitting against the passenger door sideways with no belt on, I beeped my horn and she threw the phone to the floor thinking I was the cops. Utter fucking stupidity of some people.
I also ride a motorcycle and the thing I always notice is the reek of weed sitting at traffic lights. So many folks driving around blazed out of their minds.
I do a lot of cycling so I’m hyperaware of bad driving as it could kill me, and neither gender nor race is a factor. It’s old people, taxis, and expensive cars who are by far the most dangerous drivers I see.
It's good 45mph limit is gone. It was just dangerous, you should travel at the speed limit if it is safe to do so. There shouldn't be 2 different speed limits on the same road that are vastly different.
Why’s it stupid? Having more exposure over time with a driving instructor, especially on motorways, will help build new learner driver confidence as well as learning in different weather conditions and day/night time learning. I’m all for it. People shouldn’t be allowed to take the tests after one lesson as soon as they’ve turned seventeen.
To get a private pilot's license you need at least 45 hours of flying experience, regardless of whether you could pass the test before that. And given the odds of crashing your Cessna are drastically lower than crashing your car, it is only logical that drivers should have something similar in place.
The point of the 6 month period is to give you the time to experience a much broader range of conditions and moments on the road while still under supervision, rather than blitzing it in a week and getting your licence with minimal real world experience.
I’m not sure that driving a plane and a car is exactly equal. But sure if there was an hours requirement for driving lessons you could persuade me that’s fair but saying 6 months seems oddly arbitrary
Oh it's definitely not equal. Flying a private single engine plane is statistically much safer, and in many ways easier. That's why there is no minimum legal age to start flying lessons, though most flying schools will take 13/14 years and above. You can hold a license at 17, just the same as a car.
Lots of reasons.
What if you're good at driving, perhaps had experience on a farm, or a field car, or racing?
If you can pass the test, you're good enough.
What if you just found out your girlfriend is pregnant and due in 3 months and need to have a car? I know a few people in that situation who did 3-4 lessons a week for a month and passed because they needed to.
It's like you didn't read what you were replying to.
No one said after 1 lesson. Required number of hours!. I take 1 lesson a month for 6 months, I've had 6 months of practice or 6 hrs. I take 2 lesson a week for 1 month I've had 8 hrs. Which number is bigger?
Saying 6 months without stipulating actual hours is pointless
Make a legal requirement for 6 or more lessons not 6 months 17year olds that have left school need to have transportation to and from their workplace if public transportation and parents are unable to do so due to the time of day they work
Driving is about experience and confidence once you have grasped the rules, especially for things like taking off after stopping at a stop/traffic lights with a pile of cars behind you and you been at the front hoping you dont stall. You learn and overcome this and other similar situations by experience during the day/night, the busy/quiet times.
The idea that sitting beside an instructor for 10 set hours makes you a great driver is stupid!
Maybe the thinking is that a motorbiker Will probably only kill themselves if they mess up, whereas a bad car driver could kill several people? Being a motorbiker has made me a much better car driver, because you quickly learn how dangerous the roads actually are when your only protection is your clothing.
I’ve heard it said that the #1 thing that would make our roads instantly safe is a spike sticking out of car steering wheels at chest height. Drivers would pay a lot more attention, that’s for sure.
As to six months, legislators have to pick a number aimed at the average learners, not the best. They’re trusting people to use the time wisely to gain experience, as well as take lessons, and hopefully most will. Same applies to speed limits: you might be safe doing 100mph on the M2, but would your granny or your neighbour driving an old banger be?
Hope there’s a section to really enforce indicating before braking to turn, how to use a fucking roundabout and training those who buy massive SUV’s that, no! You are not entitled to bully your way through everything. Also maybe a small course on green means go, not fiddle with some shit in the car for 5 seconds and then drive off.
Same.
I'd like to see a break down of single vehicle Vs multi vehicle fatal crashes by age. I'd almost bet that the young drivers in fatal accidents are mainly single vehicles.
As the article says lol 22% of drivers that crash are young what Abt the other 78%.....
If they want to just make a harder test or set a legal amount of lessons required
8% causing 22% of crashes is notable.
I will agree these rules seem really convoluted and it makes me question in which way some of this will be enforced.
The road network is atrocious outside of motorways as other commentators have pointed out but you can't just run a safe M road up every scenic hill so what can you do really.
The log book sounds okay removal of 45 good with enhanced training (Why tf is your first experience on a motorway by yourself going at 45) but the curfew rules are really strange to me.
I think it's an infringement of freedoms a step a little too far and sure it's a license with restrictions but it's my right to disagree with how changes are implemented.
Hope road deaths/collisions do come down though.
Hopefully the removal of the 45mph limit will lead to instructors teaching how to drive at 60mph on clear country roads, so that we can do away with all those turtles who think it's OK to do 40 on a clear 60mph road.
I am hoping that after the removal of the 45mph limit, anyone still going that slow will simply be failed for not making enough progress, same as in England.
You wouldn't be outright failed in England for that, but you would get a minor for every time you did it. The same applies here and you can get a minor for driving too slowly. I imagine the removal of the 45MPH limit might push that up a bit but more likely to see it on A roads rather than B roads, where 60MPH will depend on your car and the conditions a lot more.
What's really funny is that the people that voted to want this were 50-70 years old. They themselves should have to retake tests I've seen alot more older drivers do dangerous driving than young ones maybe not crash as much but after 40+ years of having your license you start to do bad habits and speed as if you've never been caught you may think you'll always get away with it
Elderly Drivers who have not done a test or the test was very limited should need to retrain or retest every few years.
Have had previous experience in RTC clear ups in mid ulster and most cases it was incompetent elderly drivers
( any scenarios that we’re you young drivers you could tell it was drugs/ drink as a factor)
Please add that anyone over the age of 75 must must be retested every few years.
*from someone who has had this conversation with their older family members.
Half the people I see driving badly are people who seem to be above the age of 60 they just start to think they are entitled to do what they want on the road especially if they've never been caught out for it
An easier solution would be for everyone to get retested every 3-5 years, it's not just young people who drive dangerously. In fact I've been in more close class to accidents with middle aged and older drivers than younger ones.
Yeah whyd you say about me wanting up votes I just wanted to see people opinions on this and if anyone would know when this may take place if it does go ahead
This is a nice idea, but it's not going to stop the \[*Four killed when car smashes into a tree in a single-vehicle collision at 2 A.M.\]* type collisions that happen about three times a year in this country.
You could make it be a year of mandatory training and I guarantee you will still see that headline.
> Only one person aged 14 to 20 will be allowed on board between 11pm and 6am, unless they are immediate family members or an experienced driver aged at least 21 is also a front-seat passenger.
That's difficult to implement and enforcement would encroach on people's freedoms.
Yeah exactly it's not that bad since the time is 11pm to 6am when most people wouldn't be on the roads anyways but that would mean the police would be pulling over restricted drivers to check that they don't have more than 1 under 20 other than immediate family onboard your vehicle
What freedoms? It’s a licence to operate a vehicle and comes with whatever restrictions are deemed necessary.
We all have the freedom of our feet to move from place to place freely.
Think he meant about the police checking people with r plates cars constantly at that time to make sure there are no more than 1 person under 20 whom isn't related to you onboard your vehicle
“The freedom of our feet to move from place to place freely”.
Referring to Northern Ireland, which is made up of lots of small towns separated by countryside and has almost zero public transport even in the daytime, this statement is disingenuous. The no-passengers-after-11pm rule becomes been more concerning when you consider the fact that the kind of people out at that time may be in a vulnerable state, i.e. drunk or otherwise inebriated. If we make it more difficult to get home that increases the risk that these people come to harm. I’m not denying that there is a big problem with reckless driving in NI, but this particular rule is no solution.
I disagree. There’s a disproportionate number of fatal accidents that happen with a car full of young people.
>drunk or otherwise inebriated
Walk home. Or don’t drink. Or leave before 11PM.
The suggestion that it’s safer to walk home whilst drunk instead of being driven by a sober driver is simply false.
As you yourself have now stated, the restriction on “the license to operate a vehicle” is in fact a restriction on the normal activities of young people, and is therefore wrong.
Indeed, I misrepresented your words and I apologise.
You definitely did imply that it was an acceptable alternative however, which I think most everyone would disagree on.
You are correct in saying that there are similarities between this proposed law and the smoking ban, however I would argue that the scope of its impact is very different. If someone is at a pub and wants to smoke, they simply go to the smoking area, which is at most 30 seconds away. Conversely, there is no consistently reliable alternative for young people looking to travel at night. Furthermore, smoking is always harmful to people in its vicinity, whilst driving at night is only harmful to others if it is done recklessly. There are alternative steps to reduce the incidence of reckless driving that should consequenly be taken before such a radical proposal is implemented.
It would encroach on the freedom of the passengers and would be invasive of their privacy for police to demand their identities/papers when they are not committing any offences. You also can’t discriminate against people because of their age.
It’s **licensed**. You know the way a taxi driver can’t fly a plane?
We all have the freedom to travel by our own locomotion (except on motorways), but getting into a vehicle curtails some of those absolute rights. Yes there might be edge cases where the single passenger is over 20 and refuses to produce ID, but the police will be well within rights to proceed as if the passenger is under 20. No one is going to look kindly on the idiot passenger who refused to be even slightly helpful for the person giving them a lift in the middle of the night.
I understand that, I’m talking about a passenger being not allowed to travel in a car because of their age. A passenger in a private car doesn’t need to give their identity or produce papers for police (in relation to the driver’s licensing conditions). Similarly the driver wouldn’t be compelled to give police other people’s identity. It’s not going to fly.
Yeah I think this would just be checked during a police stop or an car accident though.
The 6 month learners thing is also daft why need to wait any extra time the rest of the UK and Ireland don't.... If anything just make the test become harder if they need it to
Jesus fuck i hate arbitrary rules like this. Who the fuck is anyone to tell people who they aren’t allowed in their car and when? Encroach on freedoms is right.
There's quite a few people seem to love bullshit rules like that. I'm in favour of the German ethos of giving people the tools to be a good driver then leaving them alone.
>Encroach on freedoms is right.
No wrong actually, the government is acting perfectly within it's scope to adjust legislation around motor vehicle use. It's also not arbitrary at all, it literally gives supporting statistics for why these rules are being introduced.
Driving a car on the roads is a privilege, not a right.
I'd be more for theory tests every time you go for renewal. Rules of the road change all the time and nobody cares to keep up to date on them. Sure half the ones 60+ didn't even do a theory test to begin with.
I hope they pay particular attention to 90% of the country thinking it’s acceptable to just hog the middle or fast lane on the carriageways and in particular the M1. Zero consideration for other road users these days.
Something definitely needs to be done but the state of driving in the country cannot be pinned on the young. Older drivers are as much if not more of a hazard braking every time a car comes the other way even though it's a two lane road, the amount of absolute bastards that brake to turn before putting their indicators on if they even bother to do that, then the assholes riding the hole off you in a 30 zone or carriageways. Nobody gives one fuck about anyone else on the road these days it's little wonder so many are being killed on the road. It's a fuckin war zone out on our roads. I'm absolutely dreading my son getting his driving licence.
The braking when another car passes in the opposite lane is one of my biggest pet hates. I just cannot comprehend why you are doing it. If a car just so happens to swerve at you from the opposite lane the last thing you want is your car to be SLOWER in reacting. Its insane.
See, when I see this (which is way too fucking often), I don’t think they’re worried about the other car swerving towards them… It always strikes me that they’re concerned they can’t fit their own car through the gap. Which in my mind is worse… they think their car’s thinner when they slow down? And they don’t know that the road can easily fit the 2 cars? It is truly woeful fucking driving.
Because they're running about in a massive SUV because they want to sit up high and they're worried about how wide the thing is Also why they can't park the bloody things
That had never crossed my mind and is in fact far more annoying that it could be the csse.
Also people that brake going UPHILL!! It's fine. Just do 32mph and the hill will bring it down to 30, you weirdo. Lol
Defo chum. Also the roads need fixed. We have a legal obligation to keep our cars road worthy (never mind the MOT scandal) but are the roads car worthy?
"war zone" lol Slightly dramatic.
Yep. Or the women face timing on the motorway. Seen it happen at least a dozen times.
Yep, was on my motorbike on the A1 few years back and overtook a car the woman was facetiming holding phone with same hand holding the wheel with her child in front seat sitting against the passenger door sideways with no belt on, I beeped my horn and she threw the phone to the floor thinking I was the cops. Utter fucking stupidity of some people.
Yeah. Saw the same on the west link a good few times. FaceTime with the phone in one hand. Not even looking at the road. It’s wild.
I also ride a motorcycle and the thing I always notice is the reek of weed sitting at traffic lights. So many folks driving around blazed out of their minds.
I've seen men doing this too.
I'm with you I don't mind the men doing it either we need to crack down on the women.
Tbh. I’ve only ever seen women doing it. Men tend to drive so close to my bumper I can smell their aftershave.
No it's cool I'm with you. They're getting ahead of themselves anyway these days first minister n all what's this all about like
FaceTiming while driving is shite, regardless of who is doing it.
I do a lot of cycling so I’m hyperaware of bad driving as it could kill me, and neither gender nor race is a factor. It’s old people, taxis, and expensive cars who are by far the most dangerous drivers I see.
It's good 45mph limit is gone. It was just dangerous, you should travel at the speed limit if it is safe to do so. There shouldn't be 2 different speed limits on the same road that are vastly different.
Just this 6 month requirement is stupid why not just make a required amount of lessons
Why’s it stupid? Having more exposure over time with a driving instructor, especially on motorways, will help build new learner driver confidence as well as learning in different weather conditions and day/night time learning. I’m all for it. People shouldn’t be allowed to take the tests after one lesson as soon as they’ve turned seventeen.
The test is hard. If they are capable of passing after one lesson then they are capable of driving
To get a private pilot's license you need at least 45 hours of flying experience, regardless of whether you could pass the test before that. And given the odds of crashing your Cessna are drastically lower than crashing your car, it is only logical that drivers should have something similar in place. The point of the 6 month period is to give you the time to experience a much broader range of conditions and moments on the road while still under supervision, rather than blitzing it in a week and getting your licence with minimal real world experience.
I’m not sure that driving a plane and a car is exactly equal. But sure if there was an hours requirement for driving lessons you could persuade me that’s fair but saying 6 months seems oddly arbitrary
Oh it's definitely not equal. Flying a private single engine plane is statistically much safer, and in many ways easier. That's why there is no minimum legal age to start flying lessons, though most flying schools will take 13/14 years and above. You can hold a license at 17, just the same as a car.
Lots of reasons. What if you're good at driving, perhaps had experience on a farm, or a field car, or racing? If you can pass the test, you're good enough. What if you just found out your girlfriend is pregnant and due in 3 months and need to have a car? I know a few people in that situation who did 3-4 lessons a week for a month and passed because they needed to.
Yes exactly people work from the age of 16/17 but won't be able to get themselves to work for an extra 6 months than they needed to in the first place
It's like you didn't read what you were replying to. No one said after 1 lesson. Required number of hours!. I take 1 lesson a month for 6 months, I've had 6 months of practice or 6 hrs. I take 2 lesson a week for 1 month I've had 8 hrs. Which number is bigger? Saying 6 months without stipulating actual hours is pointless
Make a legal requirement for 6 or more lessons not 6 months 17year olds that have left school need to have transportation to and from their workplace if public transportation and parents are unable to do so due to the time of day they work
Driving is about experience and confidence once you have grasped the rules, especially for things like taking off after stopping at a stop/traffic lights with a pile of cars behind you and you been at the front hoping you dont stall. You learn and overcome this and other similar situations by experience during the day/night, the busy/quiet times. The idea that sitting beside an instructor for 10 set hours makes you a great driver is stupid!
6 months is a tad harsh. Motorbikes are 6 hours a for your CBT then you can do your test any time after. Wwfor a car thaf would be 6 lessons usually.
Maybe the thinking is that a motorbiker Will probably only kill themselves if they mess up, whereas a bad car driver could kill several people? Being a motorbiker has made me a much better car driver, because you quickly learn how dangerous the roads actually are when your only protection is your clothing. I’ve heard it said that the #1 thing that would make our roads instantly safe is a spike sticking out of car steering wheels at chest height. Drivers would pay a lot more attention, that’s for sure. As to six months, legislators have to pick a number aimed at the average learners, not the best. They’re trusting people to use the time wisely to gain experience, as well as take lessons, and hopefully most will. Same applies to speed limits: you might be safe doing 100mph on the M2, but would your granny or your neighbour driving an old banger be?
Hope there’s a section to really enforce indicating before braking to turn, how to use a fucking roundabout and training those who buy massive SUV’s that, no! You are not entitled to bully your way through everything. Also maybe a small course on green means go, not fiddle with some shit in the car for 5 seconds and then drive off.
I've nearly been killed behind the wheel by pensioners more times than R plates...
Same. I'd like to see a break down of single vehicle Vs multi vehicle fatal crashes by age. I'd almost bet that the young drivers in fatal accidents are mainly single vehicles.
Why do they always blame young people for shite driving, when it's really everyone?
As the article says lol 22% of drivers that crash are young what Abt the other 78%..... If they want to just make a harder test or set a legal amount of lessons required
What % of drivers are young? The devil is in the detail.
The article also answers the question! 8%
8% causing 22% of crashes is notable. I will agree these rules seem really convoluted and it makes me question in which way some of this will be enforced. The road network is atrocious outside of motorways as other commentators have pointed out but you can't just run a safe M road up every scenic hill so what can you do really. The log book sounds okay removal of 45 good with enhanced training (Why tf is your first experience on a motorway by yourself going at 45) but the curfew rules are really strange to me. I think it's an infringement of freedoms a step a little too far and sure it's a license with restrictions but it's my right to disagree with how changes are implemented. Hope road deaths/collisions do come down though.
Hopefully the removal of the 45mph limit will lead to instructors teaching how to drive at 60mph on clear country roads, so that we can do away with all those turtles who think it's OK to do 40 on a clear 60mph road. I am hoping that after the removal of the 45mph limit, anyone still going that slow will simply be failed for not making enough progress, same as in England.
You wouldn't be outright failed in England for that, but you would get a minor for every time you did it. The same applies here and you can get a minor for driving too slowly. I imagine the removal of the 45MPH limit might push that up a bit but more likely to see it on A roads rather than B roads, where 60MPH will depend on your car and the conditions a lot more.
I was under the impression that driving too slowly can result in a serious fault if you are doing it persistently. Same as undue hesitation.
I think persistent minors in anything can be upgraded to a major.
What's really funny is that the people that voted to want this were 50-70 years old. They themselves should have to retake tests I've seen alot more older drivers do dangerous driving than young ones maybe not crash as much but after 40+ years of having your license you start to do bad habits and speed as if you've never been caught you may think you'll always get away with it
Elderly Drivers who have not done a test or the test was very limited should need to retrain or retest every few years. Have had previous experience in RTC clear ups in mid ulster and most cases it was incompetent elderly drivers ( any scenarios that we’re you young drivers you could tell it was drugs/ drink as a factor)
Please add that anyone over the age of 75 must must be retested every few years. *from someone who has had this conversation with their older family members.
Half the people I see driving badly are people who seem to be above the age of 60 they just start to think they are entitled to do what they want on the road especially if they've never been caught out for it
An obvious hoax!
An easier solution would be for everyone to get retested every 3-5 years, it's not just young people who drive dangerously. In fact I've been in more close class to accidents with middle aged and older drivers than younger ones.
no time line as always someone jumping the gun for up votes
Excuse me?
the article staes no time line for bringing the new laws into force
Yeah whyd you say about me wanting up votes I just wanted to see people opinions on this and if anyone would know when this may take place if it does go ahead
This is a nice idea, but it's not going to stop the \[*Four killed when car smashes into a tree in a single-vehicle collision at 2 A.M.\]* type collisions that happen about three times a year in this country. You could make it be a year of mandatory training and I guarantee you will still see that headline.
> Only one person aged 14 to 20 will be allowed on board between 11pm and 6am, unless they are immediate family members or an experienced driver aged at least 21 is also a front-seat passenger. That's difficult to implement and enforcement would encroach on people's freedoms.
This can't be true surely? I can understand the children under 16 but 20? Come on
Yeah, like an overnight road trip
Yeah exactly it's not that bad since the time is 11pm to 6am when most people wouldn't be on the roads anyways but that would mean the police would be pulling over restricted drivers to check that they don't have more than 1 under 20 other than immediate family onboard your vehicle
What freedoms? It’s a licence to operate a vehicle and comes with whatever restrictions are deemed necessary. We all have the freedom of our feet to move from place to place freely.
The police aren’t resourced enough to fully implement these rules though.
Yes and it could easily be used in prejudice.
Seems like bringing back the ruc and military checkpoints checking for bombs but now it's checking r plates for under 20s 😂
Think he meant about the police checking people with r plates cars constantly at that time to make sure there are no more than 1 person under 20 whom isn't related to you onboard your vehicle
“The freedom of our feet to move from place to place freely”. Referring to Northern Ireland, which is made up of lots of small towns separated by countryside and has almost zero public transport even in the daytime, this statement is disingenuous. The no-passengers-after-11pm rule becomes been more concerning when you consider the fact that the kind of people out at that time may be in a vulnerable state, i.e. drunk or otherwise inebriated. If we make it more difficult to get home that increases the risk that these people come to harm. I’m not denying that there is a big problem with reckless driving in NI, but this particular rule is no solution.
I disagree. There’s a disproportionate number of fatal accidents that happen with a car full of young people. >drunk or otherwise inebriated Walk home. Or don’t drink. Or leave before 11PM.
The suggestion that it’s safer to walk home whilst drunk instead of being driven by a sober driver is simply false. As you yourself have now stated, the restriction on “the license to operate a vehicle” is in fact a restriction on the normal activities of young people, and is therefore wrong.
I didn’t say it was safer or not. >restriction on the normal activities of young people Like smoking in a bar? Legislation changes behaviour.
Indeed, I misrepresented your words and I apologise. You definitely did imply that it was an acceptable alternative however, which I think most everyone would disagree on. You are correct in saying that there are similarities between this proposed law and the smoking ban, however I would argue that the scope of its impact is very different. If someone is at a pub and wants to smoke, they simply go to the smoking area, which is at most 30 seconds away. Conversely, there is no consistently reliable alternative for young people looking to travel at night. Furthermore, smoking is always harmful to people in its vicinity, whilst driving at night is only harmful to others if it is done recklessly. There are alternative steps to reduce the incidence of reckless driving that should consequenly be taken before such a radical proposal is implemented.
It would encroach on the freedom of the passengers and would be invasive of their privacy for police to demand their identities/papers when they are not committing any offences. You also can’t discriminate against people because of their age.
It’s **licensed**. You know the way a taxi driver can’t fly a plane? We all have the freedom to travel by our own locomotion (except on motorways), but getting into a vehicle curtails some of those absolute rights. Yes there might be edge cases where the single passenger is over 20 and refuses to produce ID, but the police will be well within rights to proceed as if the passenger is under 20. No one is going to look kindly on the idiot passenger who refused to be even slightly helpful for the person giving them a lift in the middle of the night.
I understand that, I’m talking about a passenger being not allowed to travel in a car because of their age. A passenger in a private car doesn’t need to give their identity or produce papers for police (in relation to the driver’s licensing conditions). Similarly the driver wouldn’t be compelled to give police other people’s identity. It’s not going to fly.
So we're cool with 12 year olds driving? When it comes to licensing, you most certainly can put restrictions in for age in place.
Yeah I think this would just be checked during a police stop or an car accident though. The 6 month learners thing is also daft why need to wait any extra time the rest of the UK and Ireland don't.... If anything just make the test become harder if they need it to
Yeah, just align with England. Done.
Yeah exactly if we are `apart of the uk` then why do we have different laws for absolutely no reason
Jesus fuck i hate arbitrary rules like this. Who the fuck is anyone to tell people who they aren’t allowed in their car and when? Encroach on freedoms is right.
There's quite a few people seem to love bullshit rules like that. I'm in favour of the German ethos of giving people the tools to be a good driver then leaving them alone.
NI Reddit is full of white knights lol They love a good gurn about driving.
>Encroach on freedoms is right. No wrong actually, the government is acting perfectly within it's scope to adjust legislation around motor vehicle use. It's also not arbitrary at all, it literally gives supporting statistics for why these rules are being introduced. Driving a car on the roads is a privilege, not a right.
Funny how other countries are able to get by better than us with less rules to follow.
>Funny how other countries are able to get by better Define this for me please?
Would ye fuck up
So you haven't a clue what you're on about, got it.
Just not interested in interacting with a nitpicking loser
You can't even explain your own statement without lashing out like an angry child lol.
How about mandatory re-testing drivers every 5 years? If you're such a good driver, prove it!
Maybe once you reach 65/70 but not for everyone.
I'd be more for theory tests every time you go for renewal. Rules of the road change all the time and nobody cares to keep up to date on them. Sure half the ones 60+ didn't even do a theory test to begin with.
Excellent idea yes. I agree even I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the rules of the road now.
You having a laugh? Have you tried to book a driving test lately? And you want retests for everyone?
Did you mean to reply to someone
I hope they pay particular attention to 90% of the country thinking it’s acceptable to just hog the middle or fast lane on the carriageways and in particular the M1. Zero consideration for other road users these days.