ruling lets Provisonal drivers drive solo

Hotblack Desiato

maidhc wrote:

I'm merely saying there are other kinds of drivers that should be "looked after" before kicking the grannies off the road. Unisured foreign drivers, people with undeclared "mods", banned drivers, drink drivers, uninsured drivers are all more worthy of the limited resource that is Garda time.

Garda time isn't an issue - a medical cert is a requirement for over-70s when renewing their licence. I agree there are many other sorts of driver which we need to deal with, but if someone is medically unfit (Whether under or over 70) they're a danger to themselves and others if they drive.

Seth Brundle

Anan1 wrote:

Do they make a higher percentage surplus on provisional licence holders premiums than on the premiums of full licence holders?

Weren't the highest percentages shown to come from older women?

Carb

Anan1 wrote:

Do they make a higher percentage surplus on provisional licence holders premiums than on the premiums of full licence holders?

Not sure what you're point is. You said:

Insurance is based on risk. If another company thought they could turn a decent profit on selling you cheaper insurance then they would do it. Younger people claim more, therefore they pay more.

Obviously if an insurance company makes a surplus of 1500/2000 euro on a provisional licence holders premium, a decent profit could still be made by selling the premiums cheaper.

Prospect give this link in another thread (it is a couple of years old). The higher surpluses for provisional licence holders is mentioned in the commentary, and all the figures for each category are at the end.

http://www.ifsra.ie/data/pub_files/Strategic.pdf

TommyK

Longfield wrote:

...has anyone ever failed a driving test here and sucessfully appealed it?

Afaik, you can appeal the result in Court but, if found in your favour, the Court will only grant you the opportunity to do another test - it won't change the result of the test you've already done.

Tommy.

Our man in Havana

I.E. it is a waste of time appealing.

jimbo007

just a question, i'm 27, am able to drive, have a first provisional licence and i'm waiting for the test. i try to have a qualified driver beside me, but sometimes i don't, but i do display L plates. if i'm caught by the gardai for this, in general will i be taken to court or at the moment are they turning a blind eye considering the waiting list? does anyone have any experience of this?

agent_smith

The driving with somebody beside you at all times is entirely unrealistic. The best way to acquire experience is to drive on your own after you have had lessons from a qualified instructor and have gotten confidence from having somebody beside you at all times. The problem is twofold... the waiting times for the test and the fact that people have to move further from the city to afford accomodation. If I and a wife live 20 miles outside dublin and if i have to commute, it isn't always feasible to have somebody beside me in the car.
The driving unaccompanied is a very grey area.
By law you are supposed to have somebody beside you at all times.
That said, if you are obeying the law in every other regard... driving safely, under the speed limit, and showing due courtesy to other road users, then a garda will likely have it thrown out of court by a judge if he/she decided to prosecute you. That said if you are caught with a provisional licence on a motorway... you can probably wave good bye to driving for a good 4 - 5 years!
My friends brother is a garda with the traffic corp and I asked him this very question. His very words is that if you are driving responsibly , display L plates, and show due courtesy to other road users , then they will not prosectue and that if they tried they would get no where.. due to the fact that its not always feasible for you to have somebod beside you at all times and people have lives to live (e.g. getting to and from work)

Lorax

agent_smith wrote:

That said if you are caught with a provisional licence on a motorway... you can probably wave good bye to driving for a good 4 - 5 years!

And your source for this is? Can you even provide 1 case where a ban of any sort, nevermind that severe was handed out for this?

ninty9er

agent_smith wrote:

The best way to acquire experience is to drive on your own after you have had lessons from a qualified instructor and have gotten confidence from having somebody beside you at all times. The problem is twofold... the waiting times for the test and the fact that people have to move further from the city to afford accomodation. If I and a wife live 20 miles outside dublin and if i have to commute, it isn't always feasible to have somebody beside me in the car.

Yes drive on your own after lessons and after you've passed your test. I wasn't allowed next nor near the driver's seat of a car on my own until I had passed my test. I had never driven any car other than the instructors.

Learn to drive-> pass your test-> drive alone!!

If you have to commute you can get a test in less than 2 weeks....I did.

agent_smith wrote:

The driving unaccompanied is a very grey area.

No it's not. you're driving without a licence as the only thing that validates that licence is the presence of a fully licenced driver.

Lorax

ninty9er wrote:

No it's not. you're driving without a licence as the only thing that validates that licence is the presence of a fully licenced driver.

No offence mate but thats very far from the truth, Im on my 1st provisional and get stopped sometimes because of the car I drive. I can count on 1 hand the amount of times Ive been accompanied by a fully licensed driver. Whenever I am stopped, or going through a checkpoint and show the Gardai my license, they dont even bat an eyelid. I can tell you it would be a HUGELY different scenario if I had NO license. Its a completely different kettle of fish mate.

Lorax

ninty9er wrote:

If you have to commute you can get a test in less than 2 weeks....I did.

Arent ya great. Im in college and applied for my test in January, its looking like November before I get a date. I have had around 20 driving lessons in the last year and drive nearly every day. They testing centre wont give me a cancellation unless I get a letter from my employer, which is impossible seeing as how I dont work. So whats to say I wouldnt pass my test if I did it tomorrow? How can I prove myself if I have to wait a year for a test?

Royale with Cheese

People who've already passed their test tend to ignore the sham of a system presented to current L drivers. Sorry to burst your bubble ninety9er but driving unaccompanied is not an offence. Like Lorax, I've been stopped plenty of times and nothing's been said. I was even breathalysed once.

Getting a test within 2 weeks? Don't make me laugh. I've been waiting about 7 months for mine. Not a word.

Wossack

Royale with Cheese wrote:

People who've already passed their test tend to ignore the sham of a system presented to current L drivers. Sorry to burst your bubble ninety9er but driving unaccompanied is not an offence. Like Lorax, I've been stopped plenty of times and nothing's been said. I was even breathalysed once.

Getting a test within 2 weeks? Don't make me laugh. I've been waiting about 7 months for mine. Not a word.

what the gardai choose to enforce on a day in day out does not dictate whether something is an offence or not

as an aside, I think I recall waiting 11 months for my test ~4 years ago

galwaytt

alias no.9 wrote:

The insurance company is obliged to pay out. They can however bring the policy holder to court to recover their costs.

This is true, and was tested many years ago in the courts iirc. If I remember correctly, the precedent is that, because insurance is mandatory under the Road Traffic Act, and there being a policy in force, then the insurance companies are obliged to cover. They are not allowed to 'pull' or withdraw cover of their own volition.

They are however, as mentioned above, now taking separate actions against those policyholders who fall foul of them, and recouping costs incurred, afterwards.

The snag is, for abiding persons, that you know you're subsidising those who do not abide by the rules.

Mind you, I still think that if you drive in breach of the regs, you should be liable to prosecution for both offences.

Stark

galwaytt wrote:

The snag is, for abiding persons, that you know you're subsidising those who do not abide by the rules.

That's true. I think more insurance companies should have an option for provisional licence holders where it specifically forbids you from driving alone. A friend of mine is insured under his girlfriend's car on a policy with such a clause and it didn't cost him anything to get put down as a named driver. I got put down as a named driver under my parents' insurance when learning to drive and it cost me the same amount as it cost to get my own insurance, even though I was only using the car so my parents could teach me.

ZiabR

Alun wrote:

What a load of nonsense. The Indo's getting worse than the Sun for misleading headlines these days. This ruling doesn't allow anything of the sort, all it means is that the non display of L-plates and/or driving non-accompanied aren't offences per se, but by doing so you're in breech of the conditions attached to your licence and therefore are automatically driving without an effective licence which is a punishable offence.

This is 100% spot on.

Royale with Cheese

Wossack wrote:

what the gardai choose to enforce on a day in day out does not dictate whether something is an offence or not

as an aside, I think I recall waiting 11 months for my test ~4 years ago

The gardaí aren't choosing to ignore this offence day in day out, they're blatantly under instruction to treat it as a non offence. It may technically be an offence but that's about it. The government are basically saying it's ok to drive on a provisional until they sort out the mess they made of the testing system. They're not gonna bother making it officially legal to drive on 1st provisional as they'll just want to change that law again once the test waiting list is down to something reasonable.

Wossack

Royale with Cheese wrote:

The gardaí aren't choosing to ignore this offence day in day out, they're blatantly under instruction to treat it as a non offence. It may technically be an offence but that's about it. The government are basically saying it's ok to drive on a provisional until they sort out the mess they made of the testing system. They're not gonna bother making it officially legal to drive on 1st provisional as they'll just want to change that law again once the test waiting list is down to something reasonable.

I dunno, sounds to me like the motorbikes in buslanes thing. Word is they're treating as a non-offence, and turn a blind-eye (like this), but still occasionally people get done for it.

Anyway, my point was to say it was still an offence, correcting your original post, and you've acknowledged that above. I'd go on to say how ridiculus the whole situation is, but I think thats a given.

Bring in CBT!

seamus

galwaytt wrote:

This is true, and was tested many years ago in the courts iirc. If I remember correctly, the precedent is that, because insurance is mandatory under the Road Traffic Act, and there being a policy in force, then the insurance companies are obliged to cover. They are not allowed to 'pull' or withdraw cover of their own volition.

Indeed, this is actually written in legislation, that where an insurance company has agreed to provide a driver with insurance cover, they are obliged to pay out for any third party claims against the driver.
That is of course, provided that the terms on the insurance cert are complied with. For example, if you tell them that your car is your Mum's 00-D-1234 1.1 Fiesta, and then spend your days driving around in your own 04-D-1234 2.0 Golf, then you're not covered because you're not driving the vehicle specified on the insurance cert.
On the other hand, if you're driving the car covered in the insurance cert, but not complying with the terms of the insurance *agreement* (this is the extra booklet you get), then the insurance co. are obliged to pay out any third-party claims, but may chase you for the costs as you violated the terms of the agreement.

ninty9er

Lorax wrote:

Arent ya great. Im in college and applied for my test in January, its looking like November before I get a date. I have had around 20 driving lessons in the last year and drive nearly every day. They testing centre wont give me a cancellation unless I get a letter from my employer, which is impossible seeing as how I dont work. So whats to say I wouldnt pass my test if I did it tomorrow? How can I prove myself if I have to wait a year for a test?

Get a letter from collegfe admin stating that you NEED a full licence to drive to where your full time occupation (student) takes place, and you'll get a cancellation. Effectively a college is a student's employer. I'm sure you'll have a job coming up over the summer to pay your way next yr or whatever. In that case you could get that employer to do you the letter!!

Quite simple and commonplace! You should have a test in 2 weeks

ninty9er

Lorax wrote:

No offence mate but thats very far from the truth, Im on my 1st provisional and get stopped sometimes because of the car I drive. I can count on 1 hand the amount of times Ive been accompanied by a fully licensed driver. Whenever I am stopped, or going through a checkpoint and show the Gardai my license, they dont even bat an eyelid. I can tell you it would be a HUGELY different scenario if I had NO license. Its a completely different kettle of fish mate.

So is baking bread on a Sunday or beating a rug before 8am...don't see people being prosecuted for that..driving unaccompanied is a little more serious so what's your point?

You still don't have a valid licence; it is a permit to learn to drive in the presence of someone who is fully qualified; read the front of it! (I think it's the front anyway, it should state this)

MrPudding

ninty9er wrote:

So is baking bread on a Sunday or beating a rug before 8am...don't see people being prosecuted for that..driving unaccompanied is a little more serious so what's your point?

You still don't have a valid licence; it is a permit to learn to drive in the presence of someone who is fully qualified; read the front of it! (I think it's the front anyway, it should state this)

The difference is, he is a legend driver and has nothing more to learn. Having a fully qualified driver in with him will add nothing, he knows it all already. Added to this he really needs the car and it is quite troublesome to find someone to accompany him all the time, and of course he is the first person in history to have this problem and therefore has to break this stupid little rule.

MrP