People trying to book a driving test facing ‘ridiculous' wait to log in
Some people attempting to book a driving test have had to wait over an hour to log in to the
Road Safety Authority
(RSA) website amid 'particularly high levels of traffic'.
When attempting to access the site in recent days, users have been notified they are in a queue 'due to exceptional demand'. In some cases, people have been told their estimated wait time is more than an hour.
One person who attempted to log in to the site described the wait time as 'ridiculous'.
A spokesman for the RSA said the organisation has 'experienced particularly high levels of traffic to the booking system' in recent weeks following efforts to tackle the backlog of people waiting to take their driving tests.
READ MORE
'This has led to intermittent delays for some users, especially during peak times which we appreciate can be frustrating,' he said.
Some people have reported difficulty logging in to the RSA website
The spokesman noted that most people are able to log in and complete their booking within an average of 10 minutes.
'However, this can vary depending on a number of factors and variables – including the time of day, the level of traffic on the site, internet connectivity and the device being used,' he said.
The spokesman added that the RSA's current focus is on 'reducing waiting times and delivering additional capacity' for driving tests, but there are also plans in place to 'upgrade the booking platform and IT infrastructure once service levels have sufficiently reduced and stabilised'.
As of May, around 100,000 learners were waiting to sit their driving test with many people waiting several months to get an appointment.
The RSA recently launched an action plan to reduce this wait time to 10 weeks by early September 2025.
Measures announced under the action plan include hiring more testers, setting up new driving test centres in key areas to bring the national total to 60 centres, and expanding testing times from 7.25am to 7pm.
[
Driving test logjam: how to beat the long waiting times
Opens in new window
]
The action plan also notes there will be 'targeted manual intervention in the booking system to ensure invitations are issued to areas of greatest demand to ensure more efficient slot allocation'.
On Thursday, the RSA said a fall in the average national waiting time for a driving test to
just under 21 weeks
was 'encouraging early progress'.
The average wait was 20.6 weeks as of May 31st, down from 21.4 the previous week, which the RSA said was 'significantly ahead of the forecasted 25 weeks'.
It said the reduction reflected the 'pace and focus' with which the RSA had been implementing targeted measures.
The waiting time for those booking a driving test varies significantly depending on location, with
Tallaght
currently having the longest estimated wait time of about 36 weeks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
People trying to book a driving test facing ‘ridiculous' wait to log in
Some people attempting to book a driving test have had to wait over an hour to log in to the Road Safety Authority (RSA) website amid 'particularly high levels of traffic'. When attempting to access the site in recent days, users have been notified they are in a queue 'due to exceptional demand'. In some cases, people have been told their estimated wait time is more than an hour. One person who attempted to log in to the site described the wait time as 'ridiculous'. A spokesman for the RSA said the organisation has 'experienced particularly high levels of traffic to the booking system' in recent weeks following efforts to tackle the backlog of people waiting to take their driving tests. READ MORE 'This has led to intermittent delays for some users, especially during peak times which we appreciate can be frustrating,' he said. Some people have reported difficulty logging in to the RSA website The spokesman noted that most people are able to log in and complete their booking within an average of 10 minutes. 'However, this can vary depending on a number of factors and variables – including the time of day, the level of traffic on the site, internet connectivity and the device being used,' he said. The spokesman added that the RSA's current focus is on 'reducing waiting times and delivering additional capacity' for driving tests, but there are also plans in place to 'upgrade the booking platform and IT infrastructure once service levels have sufficiently reduced and stabilised'. As of May, around 100,000 learners were waiting to sit their driving test with many people waiting several months to get an appointment. The RSA recently launched an action plan to reduce this wait time to 10 weeks by early September 2025. Measures announced under the action plan include hiring more testers, setting up new driving test centres in key areas to bring the national total to 60 centres, and expanding testing times from 7.25am to 7pm. [ Driving test logjam: how to beat the long waiting times Opens in new window ] The action plan also notes there will be 'targeted manual intervention in the booking system to ensure invitations are issued to areas of greatest demand to ensure more efficient slot allocation'. On Thursday, the RSA said a fall in the average national waiting time for a driving test to just under 21 weeks was 'encouraging early progress'. The average wait was 20.6 weeks as of May 31st, down from 21.4 the previous week, which the RSA said was 'significantly ahead of the forecasted 25 weeks'. It said the reduction reflected the 'pace and focus' with which the RSA had been implementing targeted measures. The waiting time for those booking a driving test varies significantly depending on location, with Tallaght currently having the longest estimated wait time of about 36 weeks.
Irish Times
9 hours ago
- Irish Times
Why is it costing me more to use green fuel in my car than fossil fuels?
May I draw attention to an item that seems to escape scrutiny and that is the higher per litre pump price of HVO (hydrogenated vegetable oil). I switched my 1.5-litre diesel car to HVO in early 2024, when it was cheaper but the supplier has increased it since, stating the original price was an introductory promotion. The fuel is currently costing two to three cent more per litre than the prevailing diesel price. The Department of Transport has not responded to two queries re the taxation element, which ought to reflect the lower emissions factor. This seems to indicate that Revenue considerations supersede environmental objectives, and this deserves examination. Mr W.K. READ MORE As our carbon emissions continue to rise despite everything we are being told about the perils of climate change, it is good to see some people making the necessary personal choices to reduce emissions. But I can fully understand your chagrin at having made the switch only to see you are actually paying more for your biofuel than you would be if you had stuck with diesel, a fossil fuel. The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland said hydrogenated vegetable oil (HVO) is a renewable form of biofuel derived from vegetable oil, which is processed with hydrogen, to create a diesel substitute product. It says HVO can have a carbon footprint that is at least 65 per cent lower than conventional fossil fuel, such as diesel. For its part, Revenue tells me that HVO, like all liquid fuels, is subject to mineral oil tax. However, the tax applied to biofuels produced by biomass, including HVO, relieved of the carbon component of the tax. What does that mean? Well, the diesel you used to use has an motor oil tax charge of €595.68 per thousand litres, or just shy of 0.6 cent per litre. HVO has a motor oil tax charge of €425.72 per thousand litres as it is excused the €169.96 carbon element of the diesel tax rate. That comes to just over 0.4 cent per litre. So, all other things being equal, your HVO should cost 0.17 cent less per litre. For other people reading this, it is worth bearing in mind that the figures will vary slightly if your biofuel is replacing petrol or if you are using it for heating. It will be different again for those using blended fuels where the dispensation applies only to the portion that is biofuel. You can find all the details here . Revenue also notes that the relief from the carbon component of motor oil tax is granted to the supplier at the top of the chain. This means the price paid by wholesalers and retailers already allows for that ...which is why you should expect to benefit from the relief. Moving on from motor oil tax, fuels are also liable in Ireland to value added tax (VAT). Irish VAT rates are obliged to work within EU rules although there is some wriggle room in places. In this case, motor fuels are subject to the standard rate of VAT – currently 23 per cent. Ireland does use the discretion available to it to tax HVO at a lower rate of VAT – 13.5 per cent – but only when it is used as a heating oil, not in cars. So where does that leave us? Well, you're paying fractionally less tax on your HVO and you have the comfort of knowing that it sharply reduces the emissions from your car. However, that does not mean it is cheaper. There are two factors here. First, HVO is more expensive to produce than diesel. The industry says this is due to higher production costs and the challenge of sourcing raw material in industrial quantities. In fact, if one UK supplier is to be believed, you should be expecting to pay 10-15 per cent more for HVO than diesel but I understand the UK gives HVO no relief such as is available in Ireland under motor oil tax. The other factor is that it is not as efficient as diesel for your car. That means you will need to purchase around 7.3 per cent more HVO to cover the same mileage as you would with diesel. This is why most HVO in Ireland is, I understand, used by commercial fleets rather than by individual motorists. For companies, the offsetting by the green credentials may make it more attractive despite the added costs. But it is also why consumers need to ensure they are fully informed of the longer-term budgetary impact before making a decision to switch to such fuels. You note you switched at a time when the supplier was offering HVO at a price lower than diesel. I would have hoped the supplier made it clear this was an introductory offer but it appears from your letter that they didn't. That's not a great way for a long-term supplier of fuel to build a relationship of trust. From what I can gather, it will cost you more to run your car with HVO than with diesel. And that is even with the preferential tax rate. You suggest Revenue considerations appear to supersede environmental objections. On the basis of the motor oil tax relief, that's not entirely fair, although it is true to say the incentive to go green is modest – perhaps too modest given the additional base costs outlined above. The Government faces a choice. Either it increases the incentives available to accelerate take-up among the public, or it relies on people caring more for the environmental (and likely financial) benefits for future generations than their own pocket. On a related note, if Government departments are simply ignoring queries that come into them, it is dispiriting. The Department of Transport is among the department supposedly leading the Government's charge to hit what now appear to be unattainable climate change targets by the end of the decade. You would think they should be encouraging moves in that direction and pointing people in the direction of the information that helps them make informed choices. Ignoring people inevitably irritates people and makes them less receptive to messages the Government tells us it considers important. The information you sought was readily available from Government departments – Revenue was able to provide me with the details and point me to references within 24 hours – so it really was not beyond the department to direct your query appropriately and provide you with the basic information sought. Please send your queries to Dominic Coyle, Q&A, The Irish Times, 24-28 Tara Street Dublin 2, or by email to with a contact phone number. This column is a reader service and is not intended to replace professional advice
Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
Oireachtas should slam down gavel on judges' planned 16.7% injury awards hike
The introduction in April 2021 of judicial guidelines on personal injury awards had an immediate and sharp effect – with the median value of compensation awarded by the Injuries Resolution Board (IRB) falling 46 per cent to €10,000 in the eight months that followed. The guidelines were also aimed at creating more consistency in awards, regardless of whether they were resolved directly with an insurer, the IRB, or through the courts. The problem is, there is no comprehensive data available from the courts on awards – not helped by a dearth of written judgments at District and Circuit Court levels – for anyone to make such an assessment. Either way, an all-too-high number of claimants – encouraged, no doubt, by their lawyers – continue to think they can fare better going down the legal route than settling through the IRB. Figures published by the board last month show that while the motor crash claimants consenting to being assessed by the IRB in the first instance rose from 62 per cent to 78 per cent between 2020 and last year, the acceptance rate of awards from the board fell marginally, to 47 per cent. [ Judges expected to support draft guidelines for 16.7% rise in personal injuries awards Opens in new window ] The board of the judicial council, required by law to review the guidelines every three years, proposed in December that payouts increase by 16.7 per cent. This was adopted by the council of the State's judges in late January and passed over to the Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan, who must put the amendments before Houses of the Oireachtas for approval. READ MORE There is an expectation that the minister will bring the proposal before the Oireachtas before the summer recess. The planned blanket hike has been met with resistance from insurers and business lobby groups, who know that the increase will be passed directly on to consumers and companies. Motorists, who had seen insurance premiums fall by 25 per cent between 2017 and 2022, have already stomached rate increases in more recent years as car parts and labour inflation have driven up damage costs. The guidelines review was a crude exercise, with the committee of judges that carried it out applying the general Irish inflation rate to existing awards guidelines. The judicial council even said at the time that the committee 'did not find it possible to carry out any meaningful analysis of the quantum of court awards given under the guidelines that might inform this review'. Nor does there appear to have been any regard given to what's going on elsewhere. The going rate under the existing guidelines for minor neck injuries, where recovery is made within six months, is up to €3,000, 5½ times higher than that in the UK – where awards are among the highest in Europe. [ Is going to court worth it for personal injuries claimants? A lawyer and insurer go head to head on the issue Opens in new window ] 'The large disparity is before the 16.7 per cent increase proposed by the judicial council, which, if introduced, will make the gap even larger,' Aviva Insurance Ireland said in submission last month to the Department of Finance, which is weighing further insurance reforms. 'Comparing Aviva's claims in the UK and Ireland, attritional claims like whiplash represent 30 per cent of the cost of motor insurance premium in Ireland compared to 10 per cent of premium in the UK in 2024 and lower still in Europe.' TDs and senators should reject the planned amendments and push it back to the judiciary to go back to the drawing board. Their key role was inadvertently copper-fastened by a Waterford woman, Bridget Delaney, who mounted a challenge three years ago against the constitutionality of the guidelines. The Supreme Court ruled in April last year that it had been, indeed, unconstitutional to give the judicial council the power to set personal injury guidelines. However, the fact that the initial guidelines were subsequently independently approved by legislators gave them legal effect. The unsophisticated way that the judiciary has gone about reviewing the guidelines suggests they need some help. The IRB argued in its submission to the Department of Finance consultation said that judicial council be required to liaise with it on any future amendments. 'The board's expertise, practical experience, and annual assessment of nearly 10,000 cases annually would meaningfully contribute to the continued relevance, fairness, and effectiveness of the guidelines,' it said. Various submissions called for future guidelines to be benchmarked against European countries. 'Legal expenses and award levels for lower-value claims remain disproportionately high and are not aligned with those observed in the UK and other European jurisdictions,' said German insurance giant Allianz's Irish unit. A number, including the Alliance for Insurance Reform, a lobby group for business and civic organisations, and the IRB said the current requirement that the guidelines be reviewed very three years does not allow them to be embedded. 'Under the current guidelines model, there could be several versions of the guidelines in use dependent on whether a claim has already been assessed or if legal proceedings have been initiated,' said the IRB, which reckons it should be extended to every five years. 'A situation cannot exist whereby the same injury, the same claim, that has been rejected within the Injuries Resolution Board goes into the court system and a different set of guidelines is used to value compensation.' While the setting up of the IRB back in 2004 (then known as the Personal Injuries Assessment Board) was meant to do away with the need for solicitors, 95 per cent of claimants that end up before it are represented by lawyers. The board suggests legal fees now need to be brought into cases its handles. 'The board is aware that in some cases the issue of legal fees becomes an impediment to the acceptance of an IRB award,' it said. There's disquiet in Government, too, about the judges' review process. Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe is known to have expressed concern to the Minister for Justice about the knock-on effect of such a large hike to businesses and households. Colm Brophy, Minister of State at the Department of Justice, told the Seanad last month that his boss is looking at what legislative amendments 'can be made to make further reviews of the personal injuries guidelines more inclusive and transparent'. This may include 'making changes to the mechanism and the timing of future reviews of the guidelines', he said. This will not go down well with the judiciary. But it has only itself to blame.
