Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE PROPORTION OF learner drivers involved in fatal car accidents is much lower than the proportion of learner drivers on the road.
Tonight’s RTÉ Prime Time programme will delve into new released road statistics against the backdrop of proposed new legislation to clampdown on unaccompanied learner drivers.
In February, Minister for Transport Shane Ross sought approval for an amendment to the Road Traffic Bill, dubbed the ‘Clancy amendment’. This amendment would see car owners who allow unaccompanied learner drivers to use their vehicles face prosecution.
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.
RSA chief executive Moyagh Murdock said that number of learners involved in fatal crashes is unacceptable.
She told the programme: “On average, twelve learners are involved in fatal crashes every year and ten are unaccompanied. That compares very unfavourably with our near neighbours in the north where in 2016 they reported no learner or unaccompanied learner involved in a fatal crash.
Those are stark figures – there’s not much difference in society between north and south but there is a different attitude towards unaccompanied learner drivers.
With 47 fatal crashes involving learner drivers in between 2014 and 2017 – 35 of these fatal crashes involved unaccompanied drivers – Murdock said “it really isn’t acceptable” for people to take the risk.
Also speaking to Prime Time was Alec Lee, whose 17-year-old daughter Carol was killed in a crash in Tipperary in 2000.
He said: “All I’ve got left is memories and photographs and when you look through photos your heart breaks because the main thing that really upsets me is that there was no reason for my daughter to be dead, she should be alive and enjoying her life – the pain is still there – half my heart is gone.
If learner drivers were in my shoes they could see what effect it has had at first hand. They have no experience so they shouldn’t be driving. And as well as the law states they shouldn’t be driving, gardaí should take them off the road – the laws that are there at the moment are simply not being enforced… it’s just like a nod and wink.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
From those statistics, it could be argued that learner driver’s are safer than qualified drivers….clearly underrepresented in relation to road fatalities…
@quality cheese:
9% of drivers are learner drivers. If we assume learner drivers are less safe relative to qualified drivers, we should be expecting the % of learner drivers involved in fatal accidents to be higher than 9%. They should be over represented in the data.
@quality cheese: Yeah…learner drivers are only involved in 5.8% of the fatal crashes. So that are underrepresented in the data. You could argue they are safer than qualified drivers based on those figures…
@quality cheese: I think you’re all missing the point. Unaccompanied learned drivers should not be on the road at all – it’s illegal so the percentage should be zero
Just an interesting idea that’s a little off topic.
When laws are initially passed to enforce that seatbelts are mandatory, initially it is often the case that road deaths will increase before they fall again. The reason is that when humans start using seatbelts for the first time, they can feel safer and that leads them to take increased risks…
I think we might be seeing a similar thing happening with learner drivers. When they have learner permits, they are more careful on the roads. However, once they get their full licence, thet gain more confidence, their ego is massaged and they take increased risks…Just an opinion though
The Law of Unintended Consequences is very interesting in the way it works sometimes…
@UnTriggeredv2: but these deaths are unaccompanied learner drivers – they haven’t passed a test????
@Dara O’Brien: No, we get the point.
Road fatalities are a fact of life. Until advances in technology help us to avoid this, we are going to have to create policies that limit road fatalities.
We could introduce a complete ban on driving. Then we will get to zero. That’s not possible though. So we have to create other policies.
The argument being made here is that at the moment qualified drivers are over represented in road fatalities compared to learner drivers. Therefore, qualified drivers are more dangerous on the road.
If you want to improve that, passing greater restrictions on learner drivers won’t work. However, we could bring your idea of banning learner drivers to its logical conclusion and ban all the qualified drivers too…
@UnTriggeredv2: I think you’re focusing on the wrong statistic though. The main problem they highlight is that 74% L-drivers involved in fatal accidents were unaccompanied – that is high.
Which doesn’t mean that the planned (or existing) restrictions aren’t silly, exaggerated and impractical.
@Peter Peterski: That’s a really good point too…The major issue I’d have with that statistic is we don’t have any overall population figure to standardise against in relation to accompanied/unaccompanied drivers.
For example, if 74% of learner drivers actually drive unaccompanied, the figure of 74% of unaccompanied learner drivers involved in fatalities wouldn’t be high but normal…
@UnTriggeredv2: but if the law was imposed, 47 fewer people would be dead. There’s more to life than statistics.
@UnTriggeredv2: Why are you even bothering? I wouldn’t be wasting my time. You are spot on though.
@Dara O’Brien: If we banned everyone, there would be over 800 fewer people dead…same logic…
@Lamb: Truist point made all night…
@UnTriggeredv2: how is the ratio of uncompanied learner drivers fatal accidents compare which accompanied learner drivers fatal accidents? I don’t think that they are underrepresented then.
@Hans Vos: We can’t tell if they are representative on not…we don’t have a ratio for the total population of accompanied vs accompanied. I would only be guessing but I think it is very possible that the ratio of unaccompanied vs accompanied l-drivers is pretty high…
@UnTriggeredv2:
You’re looking at it the wrong way. Basing your conclusions purely on the number of drivers is meaningless. You need to look at accidents per mile driven. Unfortunately we don’t have those figures but I would think that the average qualified driver clocks up far more miles than the average learner driver, meaning that mile for mile unaccompanied learner drivers are far more likely to have an accident than qualified drivers. We’d need figures to prove that though.
While any crash and fatality is very sad indeed the laws now in place for learner drivers are way over the top.
How can these learner drivers get on the road and have a full licenced driver with them it is impossible to do it..
The stats are in favour of the learner drivers..with only 5% of the deaths caused and 95% for the full licenced.
But just because they are learner drivers they were not the cause of the 709 death’s over the last 4 years only 35..
Something wrong here.. for sure.
Kids need to learn to drive and they cannot do unless they were able to drive unaided..
If they broke speeding limits or dangerous driving hit them with points etc and they will learn the hard way but give them a chance to get the skills…..first
@Sportmad: And that’s before you get to things like insurance..
@Sportmad: You’re not wrong, but the main point isn’t that only 5% of L-drivers were involved in fatal crashes. If that was the case, I’d agree that the stats are favourable.
The main point, however, is that 74% of those L-drivers involved in fatal crashes were unaccompanied, clearly braking the existing rules (whether these rules make sense or not is another matter).
@Peter Peterski: change in insurance laws has seen much more defined clauses on unaccompanied drivers hence the clampdown.
Crash alone and with an L you’re not insured
@Sportmad:
It’s not impossible. You simply don’t drive unaccompanied if you don’t have a license. Just get the damn license
@Sportmad: It absolutely is not impossible to pass your driving test without breaking the law and driving unaccompanied! I did it and so do plenty of others. Either there is a point to having to pass a test to demonstrate you are a competent driver, or there isn’t.
@Peter Peterski: this is the key point that unaccompanied learner drivers make up 4.3% of all fatalities. The stats do show that accompanied learner drivers are very safe (only 1.7% of all fatalities). However, unaccompanied learner drivers would need to make up a large proportion of all learner drivers (it would need to be >70%) to justify 4.3% of all fatal accidents suggesting they are safe drivers.
@Paul Kilmartin: Yep, the statistic that Peter highlights of 74% would only suggest relatively unsafe unaccompanied L-drivers if unaccompanied L-drivers made up less than 74% of the total population of L-drivers.
You say it clearer though…
@Sportmad: ? Just take lessons in your instructors car until you pass your test? simple. It’s what myself, friends and family did. I never drove any other car than the instructors until I had my full licence.
I went through it recently and a friend is going through it now: it’s bordering on impossible to legally learn to drive in Ireland if you don’t live at home. The instructors who charge for the 12 mandatory lessons repeat, “it’s up to you to practise before the next lesson” but if you don’t have someone to take you out you can’t practise. If you can’t get insured as a named driver you have to fork out 2-4k for the first insurance.
It should be mandatory to learn to drive in school and education centres built that teach drivers how to perform manoeuvres correctly (and create new jobs).
Only place you can learn to drive is on the road. Which is nuts.
@The G-Man: I agree. I know somebody who is screwed by this system. He’s not from this country, his family doesn’t live here, he doesn’t know that many car owners who’d let him drive their car, so the only option for him is to buy his own car. Which he cannot use for at least 6 months (probably more, given the exam waiting times) unless there’s an experienced driver in the car with him. Totally impractical.
The problem is, and I’m reluctant to admit it, because I’m not a fan of the current system… the stats published do seem to support the idea that unaccompanied drivers having an accident are more likely to result in fatalities… 74% of L-drivers involved in fatal accidents were unaccompanied.
@The G-Man: I had an instructor suggest I take a car out unaccompanied to learn at one point. I’m at home thankfully but it’s very difficult to get hours behind the wheel when its not your primary method of transport in and out of work.
The old story in statistics! They still can’t accept that correlation doesn’t prove causation. Everyone gets that preached to them at the second stats lecture. It may be that people with red hair are more likely to have accidents or those over or under 6ft. It’s disturbing that any kind of legislation would be introduced as a result of chance correlations.
@Gearóid ÓCiaráin: Interesting result in the above article actually highlights that learner drivers are underrepresented in the data of road fatalities…so introducing legislation does not even make sense from that angle either…
@Gearóid ÓCiaráin:On the correlation part, you’re correct though…to have any hope of proving a causal relationship, we’d have to control for all other differences while keeping our minds open to common sense…That would be way to much for the RSA chief Moyagh or the teacher politicians im the Dail..simple stats seem to just go way over their head…
@UnTriggeredv2: Ross is just out to waste our money on his unguided principles.
We never did find out what all those summonses for serious driving offences, that were never served on sitting fianna fail TD Robert troy were for!
So are they going to cut the ridicously long wait times for driving tests now? 6 months and above is far too long to wait. Of the need to employ more testers. Are they going to do that or is this more legislation with no follow through with the sevices needed ??
i knew it, i am sick to the teeth of ministers, the RSA and general dogooders blaming L drivers with all that is bad on Irish Roads, insurance companies too have been estatic at milking false and inaccurate data for hiking premiums on those who only wish to learn. Its a tundering disgrace what has being going on. Apart from the truth coming out, the driving test regime is also beyond ludicrous with clear stats showing some very strange pass/fail rates. Perhaps Minister Ross might actually begin to realise he is punishing the wrong people and whilst he’s at it, get is finger out
I wonder how many licenced drivers who didn’t sit a test are on the road? Or passed a test when it was okay to pass your neighbours (pre current setup)
@The G-Man: yep they just handed out licenses at one point years ago. No test required .
@Catherine Sims:
It’s nearly 50 years since that was the case,apart from the infamous amnesty of course.
@Seamus Cody: The amnesty is what I was referring to and that wasn’t 50 years ago. Even if it was 50 years ago that means you probably have people on the road in their 60s who also never sat a test.
@Catherine Sims: That was in the 1950′s and early 1960′s. Again in mid 1970′s, if the applicant had three plus provisional licences’. In the 50′s/60′s there was very little traffic on the roads and zero research information. In the mid 70′s it was a knee jerk reaction to very long delays in getting a driving test appointment.
We have a lot more motorists on the road now, multiple lanes on roads and roundabout’s etc
There is no comparison between motoring in the mid 1990′s and now. Compare like with like.
@Dan Smyth: sorry should read 1900′s….
How many of these 35 were prosecuted for driving other than in accordance with the terms of their license. Very few I would imagine if any.
@Emachine: I’d imagine a % of them couldn’t be prosecuted as they sadly died.
@Emachine: technically, if they were driving unaccompanied, they were breaking the terms of their licence, no?
Someone looking to gouge more money somehow ! .
So basically children, the stats don’t support the governments agenda. So the government have used another metric to back up the legislation.
@Liam Byrne: They do support it, but only partially. As in – 74% of learners involved in fatal accidents were unaccompanied. This is bad.
Of course it doesn’t say that they were at fault and it’s up for discussion whether having an experienced driver in the car with would them help to avoid the accident…
Why are people here so shocked that the small amount of learner drivers there is were involved in less crashes than the much bigger amount of regular drivers? Is that not a given? Obviously if there’s less of them they will crash less
@happy: Is that a real question or did you even bother to read/understand the article.
@happy: If there is 9% of learner drivers on the road, we should expect that 9% of road fatalities involve learner drivers (if both are equally safe with no other differences)
Statistic given above suggests learner drivers are actually safer than qualified drivers…but we are still clamping down on them…
@UnTriggeredv2: The article doesn’t mention whether it included time spent on the road by learners vs experienced drivers. Learners make up 9% of the licensed drivers but I doubt they spend as much time on the road as experienced drivers lessening their chances of having an accident.
@UnTriggeredv2: he’s gone into hiding. I can’t say it’s surprising, I find learner drivers to be much more cautious.
@Vigo the Carpathian: Yeah that’s true. Time on the road is something that would have to be controlled for in a proper analysis, along with many other variables…The simple statistic above should give pause to policy makers though…
@UnTriggeredv2: Although thinking about it a little deeper, learner drivers might spend more time on the road than experienced drivers because… well they’re learning and will be driving around for hours for no other reason than to get experience. Needs more analysis than what’s presented…
@happy: Not shocked at all, disgusted at the continued blame game being attributed to learner drivers, indeed I was surprised to learn during the week at if your under 18 , legally you can be given penalty points, which in essence makes an ass of the new unaccompanied rules. People doing the farcical driving test should be assessed as to whether they are SAFE drivers, not GOOD drivers, it’s no wonder fail rates are so high and so many continue to be driving with learner permits.
Yeah, so only 5% of fatal accidents involved learners – that’s pretty good. However, out of those 5%, 74% were unaccompanied – this is pretty bad:
“With 47 fatal crashes involving learner drivers in between 2014 and 2017 – 35 of these fatal crashes involved unaccompanied drivers”.
However, will making the rules stricter really work? If somebody takes their parents’ car, drives alone and gets caught, the parents can always say “we told him not to take the car, Tony – you’re a bad boy, grounded for a week” – and easily avoid prosecution, right? Because what’s the alternative? Prosecuting their kid for theft? Installing a mandatory safe in each house to hold the parents’ car keys?
This law is going to be dead on arrival.
Reading through the comments and seeing the arguments put forward regarding the ‘favourable’ stats of how few compared to the overall percentage. Stop and think for a second…… these are similar stats put forward by the Healy- reas in relation to the lowering of the blood alcohol limit for driving. You are all using the same reasoning and arguments that you poked fun and ridicule at the two culchi farmers from Kerry for using in their lobbying.
So in response to it I’ll quote the counter argument that was put forward then “if it saves one life it’s worth doing”
I was a learner driver for years and never caused an accident so now I have a full license I am a carefull driver I never take driving as a right to feel free so fare I am lucky had no accident and cause no accident I but it to care on the road and respect that I can drive and go as I please it give me freedom to love and drive as I please and respect others on the roads
Shane Ross should be banned from government
“there’s not much difference in society between north and south” … actually there is. Learner and Restricted (their version of Novice) drivers are restricted to 55mph.
@Stephen McGarry: correction, 45mph
Gerard Carthy, A leaner is a learner for a reason, He or she has not passed a driving test therefore should not be allowed to drive unaccompanied anywhere, I know this from bitter experience as i was knocked off my Motorbike by a learner driver who not only was not accompanied , She was not displaying L plates, But what really took the piss was she worked for FBD insurance. I fought tooth and nail to get her prosecuted after the claims assessor basically offered my what i wanted to keep my mouth shut and nothing was done, Guards didn’t give a toss , neither did the Justice minister who i wrote to also. Or indeed the Insurance company, A catalogue of stupidity from the moment that girl hit me, 2 weeks in hospital, actually lucky i wasn’t killed as she pulled straight out of a junction without looking and sent me under the wheels of a truck on the other side of the road, Fortunately, The truck driver was clearly a better driver than she was as to his quick manouvering stopped me getting crushed. In short , none of this should have happened because she should not have been on the road, PERIOD. There is no argument or justification for driving unaccompanied without having passed your driving test, Its there for a reason. I don’t care if you live in the arse end of no where, Pass your test first.
THese figures show L drivers are statistically safer. So why are they the target of more draconian legislation? And why are the insurance industry allowed to charge outrageous premiums. They won’t release their information, but assuming these figures are correct, they are overcharging on the basis of alternative facts. The real scandal is that the RSA keep up this falsehood when their own data disproves it, and in doing so collide with the insurance industry in propogating their alternative facts. Do they get their playbook on releasing facts from Trump and his attitude to tax returns??
“involved in” doesn’t tell you if they were the cause. In the absence of those facts; these stats don’t even tell us if they were single car crashes.
It doesn’t matter what licence you’ve got…
I know of L drivers driving alone and stopped at checkpoints, warned not to do it and drove on. We cannot complain about any bad drivers when we fail to strictly enforce traffic laws. With the Traffic Corps disbanded, it appears that even with 13K Garda on the force, recklessness from all types of drivers will continue unabated. When was the last time you saw a marked or unmarked Garda vehicle pursue a speeder on any motorway?
What a meaningless statistic… The journal has become very tabloid and shoddy these days.
Think it’s time for young people to buy mopeds the guards can’t say anything then u can drive mopeds on your own ! Sorted ! :)
I QUITE AGREE LEARNING DRIVERS SHOULD NOT DRIVE UNACCOMPANIED I AM A LEARNER DRIVER AND BEEN DRIVING FOR FIFTEEN YEARS ON A PERMIT THE PROPLEM IS WITH THE TEST THEY JUDGE YOU ON BAD HABITS NOT YOUR ABILITY TO DRIVE NOTHING HAS CHANGED AS REGARDS THE DRIVING LAWS LOOK AT PARKING, OVERTAKING TAILGATING AND I COULD GO ON. SINCE I GOT A DRIVERS PERMIT I HAVE BEEN ACOMPAINED AT ALL TIMES I WAS ALSO A DRIVER IN IRISH DEFENCE FORCES IT A JOKE HOW THE TRAFFIC LAWS ARE ARE INFORCED DON’T BLAME LEARNER FOR EVERYTHING HOW MANY FULL-TIME DRIVERS IN CRASHES I LIKE TO SEE THE STATES ON THAT AND DRIVERS WHO ARE PUT OFF THE ROAD.
I need pizza
And How many fatal car crashes were Drunk Drivers involved in!? Doesn’t seem too be much been done about that now is there!!
have your say