Kathy Foley

If U-turns replaced those unnecessary reversing-around-a-corner manoeuvres so beloved of driving test inspectors, the transport minister, Noel Dempsey, would pass first time. As ungainly, ham-fisted, political U-turns go, his flip-flop on provisional driving licences takes some beating. Make dramatic policy announcement, wither under clamorous public outcry, back down quickly? You’ve passed with flying colours, minister.

Dempsey should have stood his ground. His move to prevent drivers on a second provisional licence from travelling unaccompanied may have been abrupt, but it was necessary. The current situation is farcical. There are 400,000 provisional-licence holders and hardly any have been prosecuted for illegally driving on their own, although almost all have done so at some stage.

Dempsey retreated because the provisional drivers kicked up such a stink. Sure, it wasn’t their fault there was a stupid legal loophole. Neither could they be blamed for the shambolic state of the driver testing system. But whether they liked it or not, [most] provisional licence-holders were breaking the law every time they drove unaccompanied.

Many only have themselves to blame for their lack of a full licence. Provisional licences are valid for two years. The longest waiting period at a test centre as of last week was 44 weeks. Anyone should be able to learn to drive, apply and sit for a test within the allowed 24-month timeframe.

Still, why learn to drive properly when the system is so poorly policed? A friend of mine had five provisional licences over a 15-year period without ever applying for a test. He passed first time when he eventually bothered to do it.

He reckons he got away with it because moving house flummoxes the authorities. “Obviously, if you commit a crime of any sort, moving house is the way around it,” he said. “I only applied for the test in the end because I had to take my car to France – where they do these things properly.”

His blasé attitude is typical of most provisional licence-holders. Perhaps it’s because the offence of driving unaccompanied doesn’t seem too serious. Maybe it’s because they think the rules apply to other people. Or it could be the equally cavalier approach often taken by judges and gardai.

In October,a motorist by the name of David Clarke was caught doing 180kph on the Bundoran-Ballyshannon bypass, where the speed limit is 100kph. Judge Denis McLoughlin, presiding over Clarke’s case at Donegal District Court last week, said the speed didn’t sound as bad when it was converted into miles – 112mph – before pointing out that he himself had driven on the road and thought it was “a fantastic piece of engineering”.

What would have happened if a driver ahead of Clarke had slowed down suddenly to admire this marvellous feat of engineering and Clarke, unable to stop in time, had slammed into them? What if somebody had been killed? Would McLoughlin have said 112mph didn’t sound so bad if another driver was “life-impaired” or “not as alive as they might otherwise have been”? Such an ugly word, dead.

The judge was at pains to say that he would have taken a very different view had Clark been travelling in rush-hour traffic or overtaking, although any of us would do well to manage 12mph in rush-hour Irish traffic, let alone 112mph.

Instead of banning Clarke, the judge rapped him on the knuckles and fined him €1,000. He may as well have called Clarke a naughty scamp, patted him on the head and given him a lollipop before sending him on his way.

McLoughlin’s attitude is deeply dispiriting. In fact, it’s embarrassing. He was name-checked in the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, the Philadelphia Inquirer and on FoxNews.com, where the story of his verdict on Clarke was filed under Entertainment. Reassuring to learn that the entire planet is giggling at our lax attitude to road safety.

The gardai claim to be under-resourced and unable to catch every driver who speeds or flouts the laws in some other way. This case shows it’s not as simple as needing more gardai. When the police do their jobs and bring a prosecution, we need the courts to be less lenient when it comes to infringements by motorists.

Have you ever come across a learner driver who has been so much as cautioned for driving on the motorway? Me neither. Nor do I know anyone who has been prosecuted for driving an untaxed car, although I know plenty of people who have been let off, including myself. I was driving a friend’s car at the time, your honour.

The conversation at the checkpoint went like this: “You know your tax is out?”
“Ah is it, Guard? Sorry, it’s my friend’s car.”
“Well, you’d want to tell them to sort out the tax.”
“Oh to be sure I will. Right away.”
“Right so. On you go.”

More worryingly, although I know a couple of people who’ve had to pay speeding fines, I know far more who’ve wriggled out of paying them by enlisting the help of a garda of their acquaintance.

Call me Rudy Giuliani, but a zero-tolerance crackdown really wouldn’t go astray. Giuliani succeeded in reducing the overall crime rate in New York by adopting a “broken windows” policy. Tackling minor social problems and misdemeanours such as broken windows and littering helped foster a sense of community and caused crime levels to fall. It’s a look-after-the-pennies approach to crime, where individuals take responsibility and the authorities don’t let the small stuff slide.

We could do with a similar culture of conscientiousness here. Many of us like to labour under the delusion that the rules don’t really apply to us, whether it’s in relation to driving unaccompanied on provisional licences, speeding, or even to littering. The rules apply to all of us. We really should start sticking to them.