L Plate conditions

AntiRip

kbannon wrote:

AFAIK only people learning to drive can use them - if you are fully licenced and driving the car you must remove them beforehand.

I don't think so. That would mean that everytime the gf drives the car I have to take off the L's! I'd have to buy L-plates every week. I'm sure the gardai have a lot more serious crime to be concentrating on...
:rolleyes: who am I kidding!

cormie

L plates are non sticky backed anymore, you just rub them onto the window and they stay there and can be peeled off easily.

fjon

cormie wrote:

L plates are non sticky backed anymore, you just rub them onto the window and they stay there and can be peeled off easily.

Hi Cormie, looks like we've hijacked your thread and totally changed the subject.
My suggestion to your original question is:
DO drive on the motorway if you have to, preferably with L plates, but drive carefully. If you do not attract attention to yourself by speeding, overtaking dangerously or using your mobile, chances are you will not arouse the suspicion of any Garda. As someone pointed out, I don't think anyone wants to stop you for driving on a motorway as an L drver, however if you do get stopped for something else they will use it against you.

Jak

Given the abysmal state of the testing system in this country (waiting lists recorded over 52 weeks), and the unprofessional aspects of the driving test authority, many people drive 'unplated' on provisionals.

Couple of points ...

1. Your insurance is absolutely not invalidated by driving without displaying L plates, driving unaccompanied or otherwise - unless you have an explicit agreement with your insurance company along these lines. Call your insurance company and ask if you are really worried - but generally the former will hold true.

2. Gardai are aware that a very high number of drivers are on provisionals. You can calculate an approximate value by looking at waiting lists and average tests processed in a week. How any individual reacts to your case is anyone's guess, but it is likely to be a small fine or caution. As far as I'm aware the point penalties for these offences have not been implemented - but I haven't checked in a while. Drive safe - have your taxes and insurance in order and you will not be asked for your license. Gardai don't randomly pull cars off the road.

3. As someone who was on an Irish provisional for 3 years (1 test failed by 2 marks for excessive caution which could have easily been remedied and 2 tests where I never started the car through no fault of my own) - I have the uptmost sympathy for provisional drivers in this country. Waiting times to take a test should be one month at the very limit - then we can complain to people for not having a full license. I ended up arranging a UK test as it was easier and I could have sat the test there 10 times before getting another shot here.

As for licensed drivers being better than provisional ... rubbish. On an individual by individual basis there are enough cases for arguments on both sides. I have seen plenty of older drivers with poorer reactions, plenty of younger drivers who are too nervous for example. It is also commonplace to hear people 'learning' to drive a certain way to pass the test, and then reverting to their regular patterns.

Driving teaching and licensing has a long way to go in this country.

Gurgle

I disagree with everyone.
You're all wrong!

Seth Brundle

unkel wrote:

kbannon wrote:

yes but the insurance company can recover any costs of a claim from you (and I believe are starting to carry out this)

That new to me :eek:

Did a quick scan on this as I am sure I read about it recently and all I could find was this [relevant sentence bold]... (from http://homepage.tinet.ie/~breadandroses/press.htm):-
Labour Leinster Euro candidate, Sean Butler, has called on the Government to change the law in relation to provisional driving licences. Undercurrent legislation it is illegal for a driver on their first or third provisional licence to drive without a qualified driver accompanying them.
According to Mr. Butler, "At present, 24% (375,000) of those driving on Irish roads only hold a provisional licence. The worrying fact is that the Irish Insurance Federation (IIF) has stated that, the insurance policies of first or third provisional licence holders are invalid if they are driving unaccompanied. The IIF have stated that in these cases they will pay third party costs to claimants and then sue the provisional driver to recover the costs."

"The fact that insurance companies are willing to take money off young provisional drivers and then use this loophole to invalidate their policy is a scandal. Then to add insult to injury they will sue a young driver to recover the cost, this is outrageous. The IIF itself estimates that 200,000 drivers fall into the category of first or third provisional drivers," Mr. Butler.

Jak

Interesting link - though the quote is 5 years old, so I wonder where things currently stand. When I called my insurance company (maybe a year ago) they explained that I would be fully covered were I on a 3rd provisional and unaccompanied - I might call them to see what the case would be now.

impr0v

seamus wrote:

You should be safe to drive in any non-public place - carparks after hours, school grounds, etc. I wouldn't go as far as saying 10 lessons - as you say, you do need to practice between them. But maybe 3 or 4 minimum, just to get the basics of driving, and some common sense drummed into you.

I think he means that the insurance company have specified that he must have done 10 lessons with an approved instructor before they will insure him.

Nice little clause for the driving instructors. Wonder how much they have to pay to get 'approved?'

unkel

kbannon wrote:

Did a quick scan on this as I am sure I read about it recently and all I could find was this [relevant sentence boldThe worrying fact is that the Irish Insurance Federation (IIF) has stated that, the insurance policies of first or third provisional licence holders are invalid if they are driving unaccompanied. The IIF have stated that in these cases they will pay third party costs to claimants and then sue the provisional driver to recover the costs.[/B[/I]

OMG, so if Sean Butler is correct, most provisional license drivers are in fact uninsured if unaccompanied :eek:

Imagine causing an accident which leaves someone an invalid - this will mean you will have to pay most of your earnings for the rest of your life....

I was not aware of this and I'm not 100% convinced this is the case. If it is, that's the strongest argument I can think of for my point of only driving with a qualified instructor

seamus wrote:

Driving with a qualified instructor (and particularly dual-control cars) is good for instruction, but restrictive when it comes to gaining experience and roadcraft. Dual-control cars are not normal, and wouldn't give a realistic experience for learners

Why? The dual control is only used when the learner makes an error, serious enough to potentially cause an accident

seamus wrote:

Part of driving is learning that you are the driver, you are responsible for everything that occurs to and in the car while you drive

That's why the dual control is only used as a last resort, e.g. if you fail to brake approaching a stationery vehicle. Surely you're not saying it is better to drive yourself and crash into it?

I appreciate that the vast majority of people have never seen a dual control test vehicle, let alone driven it under supervision of a qualified instructor - culture shock

PBC_1966 wrote:

If all practice had to be done with an instructor it would make getting a license horrendously expensive, surely?

There is no point denying this. Yes it will be very expensive, on average I guess about 60 odd hours times 40 odd euro (remember it's not in your own car), so ballpark €2.5 grand :eek:

Soon after this is introduced though, a 17 year old qualified driver can look forward to a starting insurance premium of say €1000 for a 1.0 liter car and voila, the whole investment has paid off at once. Imaginge the further savings when he / she is 18, 19, ..., 40

But most importantly, we'll all be heading for insurance premiums of hundreds rather than thousands if the other big insurance issue, personal injury claims, is sorted

a_ominous

Just a general comment. AFAIK there is a central fund that all the insuance companies pay into (using our money) that will pay out even in the case where a driver has no insurance or has committed a road traffic offence. This helps to run up everyones premium.
As I've said before, I think compulsory lessons for all would be good. That should reduce all premiums including those of driving instructors whose lessons might cost 35 euro an hour. But what of the total cost to everyone for each fatality? I've seen figures of about 1 million per fatality. Not to mention the emotional costs to friends and family of the deceased.

Stark

As if the insurance companies will reduce premiums just because they "can"

seamus wrote:

Driving with a qualified instructor (and particularly dual-control cars) is good for instruction, but restrictive when it comes to gaining experience and roadcraft. Dual-control cars are not normal, and wouldn't give a realistic experience for learners

Why? The dual control is only used when the learner makes an error, serious enough to potentially cause an accident

I did lessons in a dual control car and sometimes the instructor will use the dual controls if you make a mistake in technique like forgetting the clutch. It is very VERY annoying. From your point of view (since you're not looking at the instructor's feet all the time), you're simply driving along and suddenly the pedals stop responding the way they should for no apparent reason. That's why it doesn't give a realistic experience.

seamus

unkel wrote:

Why? The dual control is only used when the learner makes an error, serious enough to potentially cause an accident

That's why the dual control is only used as a last resort, e.g. if you fail to brake approaching a stationery vehicle. Surely you're not saying it is better to drive yourself and crash into it?

As Stark says though, many instructors will use the dual control to correct minor errors, clutch correctly to change gears etc. It's better to allow someone to make a grievous error and attempt to correct it, then to do it for them. That's the point of L plates - "Stay clear, this guy could make a serious cock-up". You learn by making mistakes and correcting them, not making mistakes and having them magically fix themselves.

unkel

seamus wrote:

many instructors will use the dual control to correct minor errors, clutch correctly to change gears etc.

Ah I see your point, but that is not what instructors should do

Stark wrote:

I did lessons in a dual control car and sometimes the instructor will use the dual controls if you make a mistake in technique like forgetting the clutch. It is very VERY annoying. From your point of view (since you're not looking at the instructor's feet all the time), you're simply driving along and suddenly the pedals stop responding the way they should for no apparent reason. That's why it doesn't give a realistic experience.

Seems that incompetent instructor is more interested in the maintenance of his car than to teach you how to drive :mad:

My instructor has never done anything like it. The most trivial he ever used his brakes for is when I failed to completely stop at a stop sign. Was doing maybe 3mph and about to take off again and he slammed his foot down as hard as he could just to make the point. If you don't completely stop during the test, you fail. He made his point, I didn't make that mistake again

PBC_1966

If you don't completely stop during the test, you fail. He made his point,

Ah... The rolling stop, supposedly a favorite target of many small-town sheriffs in the U.S. eager to boost county funds!

It's not quite such an easy target in Britain these days, as stop signs have become pretty rare, mostly replaced with "Give way" (yield) signs instead, or the dreaded mini-roundabout.

Esel

It would be very interesting to see the stats of all accidents, giving a breakdown of:

- whether driver(s) were on a full or provisional license

- no. of years license held.

I'm sure these figures are available somewhere.

My reply to people who say 'I've been driving for fifty years without an accident' is 'Yes, but how many accidents have you caused?'

RicardoSmith

Cut down L plates are like drum brakes painted red....lame.

seamus

RicardoSmith wrote:

Cut down L plates are like drum brakes painted red....lame.

They're also illegal.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

PBC_1966

the death rate in the US which is twice what it is here.

What is that based on? Deaths in auto accidents per X amount of population, or maybe deaths per passenger-mile traveled?

You can't look at just one thing (e.g. "L" plates) and correlate it with the death rate without taking into account all other variables.

Seth Brundle

PBC_1966 wrote:

What is that based on? Deaths in auto accidents per X amount of population, or maybe deaths per passenger-mile traveled?

You can't look at just one thing (e.g. "L" plates) and correlate it with the death rate without taking into account all other variables.

Read what he said again - "maybe that's a contributing factor to the death rate in the US"