Does driving on your own with first provisional void your insurance

unkel

miju wrote:

eh why was my post from the start of this thread deleted??????

There are no deleted posts in this thread. Perhaps it was a database error?

Anyway, feel free to post again, miju

miju

musta been a db error so , no need to repost it , it's pretty much been covered in the thread so far in that the insuranc will honor your policy for a third party but not for yourself and then pursue you for full amount of claim plus all costs

md99

Since we're already off topic, might as well follow up on the moped issue.

Does one need insurance/anything additional to drive one? And is it expensive?

miju

yes u need insurance to drive one , a 50cc moped should cost no more than about €750 to insure

md99

that's that one out the window for me then!

furtzy

md99 wrote:

Since we're already off topic, might as well follow up on the moped issue.

Does one need insurance/anything additional to drive one? And is it expensive?

??? Its no wonder you failed your mock test 14 times asking questions like that.

md99

furtzy wrote:

??? Its no wonder you failed your mock test 14 times asking questions like that.

Someones missing his 6:00 pill! I'll call the nurse for you.

Wishbone Ash

md99 wrote:

Someones missing his 6:00 pill! I'll call the nurse for you.

Well he has a point md99. I would have thought that all motorists or potential motorists would know that it is compulsory to be insured to operate a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place.

md99

Wishbone Ash wrote:

Well he has a point md99. I would have thought that all motorists or potential motorists would know that it is compulsory to be insured to operate a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place.

Now that you've addressed the situation properly (not ignorantly as furtzy has)..

You'd be wrong in thinking that of all drivers... There are plenty who don't care to know anything about mopeds, motorbikes etc..., more specifically young drivers I'm sure, remember all that these guys need to get on the road is the ridiculously easy theory test. Lots of people don't care to know the actual rules, they just want to know what will pass their test.

Where is a better place than here to enquire? It's free and most users don't mind sharing their knowledge.

Not saying that it's right..

Wishbone Ash

md99 wrote:

remember all that these guys need to get on the road is the ridiculously easy theory test.

....which has 9 potential questions relating to insurance!

su_dios

Reading this whole thread I really have to say I find Furtzy very entertaining. He is living in his own dream world. The OP was clearly pointing out that after 8 months driving accompanied that he/she was felt confident enough to be driving on their own. Depending how often the OP drove each week 8months is a fair bit of time to gather up a good bit of experience.

It just isn't practical to have a fully licenced driver in your car all the time these days! You also learn much more being out on your own and having to make these decisions yourself.

HOWEVER, I think that any learner driver wishing to do this should have a minimum of 10 lessons done and should ease themselves into this. Lessons should be mandatory. I would not encourage someone who has just obtained a provisional and never had any experience bar one or two outings to go out on their own.

Furtzy get of your high horse because you come ascross as an ignorant pr*ck! You do not have any more right to be on the roads than any provisional driver and I hope you don't have an attitude like that while you are driving because I pity the learner drivers that come up against you! Fact of the matter is we pay the same tax as you and we more than likely pay more insurance too... So we have paid more to be driving on the roads.

Btw most of the stupid things people do on the roads are with people with full licences because they no longer have anything to prove or have developed very bad habits over the years. In a lot of cases its due to frustration with learner drivers, resulting in them doing very stupid things.

OP has 8months and will continue to learn each driver he/she drives. Same as any other driver on the road. 8months SHOULD have easily covered the basics more than enough for OP to drive. What makes the OP a good driver is experience which will take time.
The word competant was used.. not brilliant or excellent. Meaning OP can do the job

Wishbone Ash

su_dios wrote:

It just isn't practical to have a fully licenced driver in your car all the time these days!

Was it ever practical?

we more than likely pay more insurance too...

Insurance prices are based on risk assessement. Provisionally licenced drivers probably have more claims or more expensive claims.

What makes the OP a good driver is experience which will take time

Experience won't make anyone a good driver. Learning from experience will!

furtzy

su_dios wrote:

Reading this whole thread I really have to say I find Furtzy very entertaining. He is living in his own dream world. The OP was clearly pointing out that after 8 months driving accompanied that he/she was felt confident enough to be driving on their own. Depending how often the OP drove each week 8months is a fair bit of time to gather up a good bit of experience.

It just isn't practical to have a fully licenced driver in your car all the time these days! You also learn much more being out on your own and having to make these decisions yourself.

HOWEVER, I think that any learner driver wishing to do this should have a minimum of 10 lessons done and should ease themselves into this. Lessons should be mandatory. I would not encourage someone who has just obtained a provisional and never had any experience bar one or two outings to go out on their own.

Furtzy get of your high horse because you come ascross as an ignorant pr*ck! You do not have any more right to be on the roads than any provisional driver and I hope you don't have an attitude like that while you are driving because I pity the learner drivers that come up against you! Fact of the matter is we pay the same tax as you and we more than likely pay more insurance too... So we have paid more to be driving on the roads.

Btw most of the stupid things people do on the roads are with people with full licences because they no longer have anything to prove or have developed very bad habits over the years. In a lot of cases its due to frustration with learner drivers, resulting in them doing very stupid things.

OP has 8months and will continue to learn each driver he/she drives. Same as any other driver on the road. 8months SHOULD have easily covered the basics more than enough for OP to drive. What makes the OP a good driver is experience which will take time.
The word competant was used.. not brilliant or excellent. Meaning OP can do the job

Not as entertaining as the complete and utter sh*te that has be spoken on this post....beggars belief.



Not always practical to have someone with you.....I pay my tax and higher insurance..... You pay higher insurance because you represent a higher risk plain and simple.

Most of stupid things are done my people with full licences....listen to yourself that is utter crap. If that was the case then I would pay the higher insurance and not you.


The attitude of provisional licence holders on this thread sums it up...you all seem to know better and have way too much over confidence in your driving ability. Over confidence is what causes accidents.

I suggest you read back over your post and grow up

Lorax

furtzy wrote:

Not as entertaining as the complete and utter sh*te that has be spoken on this post....beggars belief.



Not always practical to have someone with you.....I pay my tax and higher insurance..... You pay higher insurance because you represent a higher risk plain and simple.

Most of stupid things are done my people with full licences....listen to yourself that is utter crap. If that was the case then I would pay the higher insurance and not you.


The attitude of provisional licence holders on this thread sums it up...you all seem to know better and have way too much over confidence in your driving ability. Over confidence is what causes accidents.

I suggest you read back over your post and grow up

Stop being an arsehole, seriously. You were only able to address about 1/4 of the points in his (very valid) post. How about you argue with this:

HOWEVER, I think that any learner driver wishing to do this should have a minimum of 10 lessons done and should ease themselves into this. Lessons should be mandatory. I would not encourage someone who has just obtained a provisional and never had any experience bar one or two outings to go out on their own.

Very fair point. He's encouraging a minimum number of mandatory lessons, and not encouraging inexperienced provisional drivers to drive alone.

It just isn't practical to have a fully licenced driver in your car all the time these days! You also learn much more being out on your own and having to make these decisions yourself.

Another very valid point. Unless you are very privileged, its not practical to have a fully licensed driver in the car every day. Which means: To only drive accompanied by a fully licensed driver = Provisional driver is on the roads far less = less driving experience = less chance of passing driving test.

Btw most of the stupid things people do on the roads are with people with full licences because they no longer have anything to prove or have developed very bad habits over the years. In a lot of cases its due to frustration with learner drivers, resulting in them doing very stupid things.

This is merely an observation and cannot be proved, but in my opinion because of the ratio of fully licensed drivers to provisional drivers, fully licensed drivers are statistically going to be involved in more accidents.

OP has 8months and will continue to learn each driver he/she drives. Same as any other driver on the road. 8months SHOULD have easily covered the basics more than enough for OP to drive. What makes the OP a good driver is experience which will take time.

Exactly. Op hasn't said he drives unaccompanied, he was merely wondering does it void his insurance which has been pointed out repeatedly that it does not.

Look at it like this, I know someone who was driving 3 months, got a letter from employer, did driving test and passed. Because of the number of driving lessons with a qualified instructor (think it was 20) they did, coupled with not having picked up any bad driving habits, passed after 3 months on the road.

Now personally I have been driving 9 months, and have gotten over 10 lessons and even more lessons from my dad on regular basis. I believe I could pass the driving test now, except for the fact that I WONT GET A DATE UNTIL AT LEAST JANUARY 2008! Whats to say I couldnt pass my test tomorrow? I dont even get a chance to prove myself, so up until I get my test (and pass hopefully), I will continue to drive unaccompanied.

furtzy wrote:

Over confidence is what causes accidents.

Wrong - speeding, drink driving and lack of experience are what cause the most accidents (Fact).

md99

furtzy wrote:

The attitude of provisional licence holders on this thread sums it up...you all seem to know better and have way too much over confidence in your driving ability. Over confidence is what causes accidents.

I suggest you read back over your post and grow up

Back in my day........

md99

furtzy wrote:

Not as entertaining as the complete and utter sh*te that has be spoken on this post....beggars belief.



Not always practical to have someone with you.....I pay my tax and higher insurance..... You pay higher insurance because you represent a higher risk plain and simple.

Most of stupid things are done my people with full licences....listen to yourself that is utter crap. If that was the case then I would pay the higher insurance and not you.

Lorax and su_dios have made a very valid, fair argument, and might I point out two things in addition:

a) Calling something which is a FACT/STATISTIC 'utter crap' or 'sh*te' does NOT make it untrue, it just makes you look like you don't want to lose an argument.
b) You are in no position to be telling someone to 'grow up'.

There will always be two main kinds of learner drivers, those decent ones who cause no hassle, drive safely and will try and progress by getting their full licence, and those who don't care and are content to speed around town in their '93 Civics and whatnot, revving and causing all sorts of general chaos.

While maybe you've had some bad experience with the latter, you have no right to take out your petty anger on the former. Would it have been a help when you were a learner driver if, when you sought help people ignored and acted ignorantly to you? Maybe it took you years yourself to pass the test yourself, and now you're taking it out on those facing the same situation?

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, better stop as I'm sure that assuming this kind of thing is what you do with your spare time (abuse provisional drivers looking for help) your life is far from interesting!

Jumpy

md99 wrote:

Agreed, thank God most of our society don't adapt furtzy's attitude of 'you're a provisional driver, only full's are worthy of my attention', face it your living in 22nd century Ireland, not the Third Reich.

The young in our society are being given far too much freedom!:mad: :mad: :mad: Back in my day this never would have happened!!!....:mad: :mad:

And there we have Godwins Law. You cant escape it.

C.D.

Lorax wrote:

.

This is merely an observation and cannot be proved, but in my opinion because of the ratio of fully licensed drivers to provisional drivers, fully licensed drivers are statistically going to be involved in more accidents.

Hmm.. that is like saying.. 40% of all driver road deaths involve alcohol. So 60% of those people die when sober. So its safer to be drunk.


If we have 1000 car journeys, 950 sober and 50 taken while drunk and 100 overall road deaths it means that 40 out 50 drunk people died and 60 out of 950 sober people died. I pulled these figures out of the air, but only to illustrate that you're wrong.


More accidents probably do involve fully licensed drivers- but there are way more fully licensed drivers than provs. so statistically speaking, you would expect that to happen. I'd be willing to bet that there is a higher rate of accidents amongst prov. drivers.

DonJose

su_dios wrote:

You do not have any more right to be on the roads than any provisional driver

Actually, if he has a full licence, he does have the legal right to drive unaccompanied, whereas a first provisional licence holder does not. If Furtzy travelled to any other country in the world he has to right to drive, whereas a provisional licence holder does not.

DonJose

Lorax wrote:

Wrong - speeding, drink driving and lack of experience are what cause the most accidents (Fact).

This from a Provisional driver who admits drinking and driving.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055053314&referrerid=&highlight=

This from a Provisional driver who admits speeding and in my opinion dangerous driving.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055049144&referrerid=&highlight=

furtzy

DonJose wrote:

Actually, if he has a full licence, he does have the legal right to drive unaccompanied, whereas a first provisional licence holder does not. If Furtzy travelled to any other country in the world he has to right to drive, whereas a provisional licence holder does not.

At last some reason.......makes a change.

I reckon boards contains a young age group so I probably should have expected there would be a higher proportion of provisional licence holders and the comments I've got. Strange thing here is that you don't seem willing to agree with the terms of the learners permit i.e provisional licence that you applied for which is that you drive accompanied on your first, third and subsequent licences.

Its a pain in the arse I know but thems the rules of the permit you willing applied for.

To the OP why don't you ring up your insurance company and tell them that you plan to drive unaccompanied and whether you still have cover.

I've been driving 17 years. Have driven cars, motorbikes, vans etc here and all over the world Believe me when I say that after 8 months where as you might think you're a good driver having mastered the basics there is still a lot to learn. Its a constant learning experience.

DonJose

I'd like to ask the provisional drivers who are bitching about the provisional licence system and long waiting lists for tests. Have any of you even applied for a test? Cancellations are frequent because of a loophole which allows anybody who applies for a test to miss that test and still apply for a new/extension provisional licence. Contact your local test centre and ask if they could fit you into a cancelled slot.

layke

My mate got his full license after 6 weeks on the road. What do you think of that one?

I've driven fro 6 years on a provisional. Now that I have my full it's made sweet FA to my driving ability.

The point; Irish Drivers think that once they get a full license it means that they are good drivers and automatically safer then those on a provisional. That is of course utter cack. I've seen far more overconfident drivers overtake an L plate on dangerous bends simply because the learner was going too slow for them.

As for high insurance. That has nothing to do with the provisonal drivers except for the fact that a prov license means they can charge more. The courts dish out oodles of cash when you hit someone. In the UK not so much, hence lower insurance. Medical bills there are cheaper too.

I'll say it again, my 5 years road exp is far more valuable to me then any piece of pink paper I spent 1 hour getting.

Wishbone Ash

furtzy wrote:

I've been driving 17 years. Have driven cars, motorbikes, vans etc here and all over the world Believe me when I say that after 8 months where as you might think you're a good driver having mastered the basics there is still a lot to learn. Its a constant learning experience.

I agree with you there furtzy. I have been driving motorcycles, cars, vans, tractors, rigid trucks, articulated trucks, buses, plant, argricultural machinery, forklifts, teleporters, with a wide variety of loaded trailers for over 20 years and I'm still learning every day.

Many of the posters on the Motors Forum have only experienced driving category B vehicles but consider themselves to be very experienced drivers.

G86

The guy that started the thread did seem to be a wee bit cocky...BUT I do agree with him in a way.

I got my prov license a few months ago and I've had 20 lessons and i feel that I'm fairly competent-not brilliant not better than anyone else-just competent enough to be assured of my safety on the road.

I havent gotten my car yet but when I do I'l be driving unaccompanied as I don't have anyone with a full license to drive with me. I've applied for my full license already but Im on a major waiting list.

I think everyone is gettng a bit hot headed on this subject as it is not a new phenomenon, prov drivers have been driving unaccompanied for years. I think that once you have enough lessons done to feel comfortable and secure in your ability then there is no reason why you should not go out on your own to gain valuable on the road exp.

su_dios

DonJose wrote:

Actually, if he has a full licence, he does have the legal right to drive unaccompanied, whereas a first provisional licence holder does not. If Furtzy travelled to any other country in the world he has to right to drive, whereas a provisional licence holder does not.

Haha yes very good point there, my bad!:D

Furtzy seems to be the only one on here that has a problem with learner drivers. You keep saying though that the OP considers himself to be a good/great driver. He mearly said he feels confident enough to go out on his own. And yes you do learn more every day you keep driving and you will never stop learning, but there is a stage where you have to go out and drive and begin learning this!

I was saying that its the people with full licences that seem to do a lot fo stupid things around learner drivers purely due to the fact that they have no respect for learner drivers and don't want to be stuck behind one even if he/she is driving at the limit.

3 of such incidents happened to me yesterday and in every case I was obeying the rules of the road.
Now heres a good one.. I was on a narrow road behind a driving instructor's car at a junction. It was obviously his first lesson as he was going about 5kms down the road. Then cut out twice at the junction but we've all done it before when learning. The driver would not move off from the junction and I sat behind the car for 2mins waiting for him to do something and for t a gap. So the car behind me starts flashing the lights at me then tries to overtake me and the car in front and stops at the top of the junction on the wrong side of the road. Realising this the car then reverses back down the road back into position and almost causes a crash with two other cars. All because they had no patience with learner drivers. This sort of stuff happens all the time.

I am in no way saying learner drivers don't make mistakes!

17years is a lot of experience and I'm sure you a very good driver but I'm also sure you make it hell for learner drivers or other less experienced drivers on the road with that attitude. Taxi drivers probably spend more time on the roads than most and therefore should have a lot of experience! In fact its taxi drivers who are among the most dangerous.

If you disagree with that than you obviously don't get taxis very often.

Confidence will make a driver more comfortable on the road and less likely to do something stupid. Cockyness which is a different thing will lead to a driver doing something stupid.

I'm sure your next post yet again will have some reference to how good a driver you are and how much you know!:p

Wishbone Ash

su_dios wrote:

He mearly said he feels confident enough to go out on his own

I think you are missing the point that the pro-accompanied posters are making. The fact that HE feels competent/confident enough is totally illogical. We cannot rely on his own judgement of his own driving ability/skills. If that were the case there would be no need for driving tests.

If you were ill and required a doctor, would you go to a qualified registered doctor or to an unregistered, unqualified person who was confident in their own ability to diagnose/treat you?

su_dios

Wishbone Ash wrote:

I think you are missing the point that the pro-accompanied posters are making. The fact that HE feels competent/confident enough is totally illogical. We cannot rely on his own judgement of his own driving ability/skills. If that were the case there would be no need for driving tests.

If you were ill and required a doctor, would you go to a qualified registered doctor or to an unregistered, unqualified person who was confident in their own ability to diagnose/treat you?

No thats a very valid point and I agree with you but what I'm saying is there is a time when you have to make that call. In my case it was due to the opinion of my instructor, my dad and my own opinion. I have learned a lot more since then as you can't rely on others to tell you what to do(even when its not needed or asked for:rolleyes:).

I think the accompanied driver thing is necessary but only practical for the first while. A compromise is needed on it really. I'm waiting to hear a date for my test but I've been told 52 weeks by them (Finglas) from when I applied in October.

What I can't make any sense out of is why you can go out driving on your own on a 2nd prov license having never gone out in a car before. Why are there not 2 types of prov license? One is used during your lessons where you have to complete a certain number and then use this certificate provided by your instructor to apply for your proper prov license and then aim for your full license. Makes a lot more sense and encourages people to spend longer learning.

Wishbone Ash

su_dios wrote:

What I can't make any sense out of is why you can go out driving on your own on a 2nd prov license having never gone out in a car before

Yes that loophole is there. There are also 3 categories of vehicle which do not require an accompanied driver (as it would be impractical) and anyone who has held a category B (old C) provisional on or before the 12th August 1985 is not required to be accompanied.

The reason the ruling is relaxed on the second provisional is to encourage people to apply for and make a decent effort to pass the test. Otherwise it's back to being accompanied. Despite the lengthy waiting lists, there are almost three times as many people on provisionals who have not even applied for a test.

su_dios

And the reason they don't apply is because the lists are so long :rolleyes:
Makes a lot of sense

Wishbone Ash

su_dios wrote:

And the reason they don't apply is because the lists are so long :rolleyes:
Makes a lot of sense

That's debatable but it's a futile reason for not applying. A person who is keen to do the test will apply regardless of the lenght of waiting. It doesn't make sense not to apply as you have nothing to lose. Your name might as well be on the list getting somewhere rather than complaining about the waiting time and getting nowhere. The fact of the matter is that there are 300,000 people who have no interest in applying and only do so to get another provisional (and subsequently cancel the test :rolleyes:). A work colleague has been driving for 35 years on a provisional. :eek:

Perhaps they should make it mandatory to apply for a test before granting the first provisional.

su_dios

Wishbone Ash wrote:

That's debatable but it's a futile reason for not applying. A person who is keen to do the test will apply regardless of the lenght of waiting. It doesn't make sense not to apply as you have nothing to lose. Your name might as well be on the list getting somewhere rather than complaining about the waiting time and getting nowhere. The fact of the matter is that there are 300,000 people who have no interest in applying and only do so to get another provisional (and subsequently cancel the test :rolleyes:). A work colleague has been driving for 35 years on a provisional. :eek:

Perhaps they should make it mandatory to apply for a test before granting the first provisional.

Yeah thats a good idea but it then forces people to start driving straight away and also relies on the list still being at 52 weeks.

35 years?? I was under the impression that if you do not sit the test in a certain time frame that you have to reapply for your prov through theory test? Obviously has money to blow on insurance so

Wishbone Ash

su_dios wrote:

Obviously has money to blow on insurance so

No, insurance/provisional licence is only an issue with young drivers. A middle aged driver with a full NCB bonus on a provisional will probably pay much the same as a similar driver with a full licence.

C.D.

TBH, the Irish system is useless. Here is alist of things that should be covered, but you won't learn for/from your test or in lessons.

1) Emergency braking, major major issue, how to safely bring your car to a stop in a dangerous situation.

2) Motorway driving and etiquette. Big no-brainer; this should be taught.

3) Night time driving.

4) Parallel Parking.

5) Driving under hazardous conditions. How to drive in snow, fog, ice etc.

6) Combination of 5 and 1. Braking under hazardous conditions.

7) How not to lose control of your car (oversteer, understeer, brakes locking etc.)

8) What to do in an emergency situation- what if you are involved in an accident?

9) Deal with minor breakdowns that could cause traffic disruption- change a tyre etc.

It's things like these which need to be taught. #9 would make a big difference in rush-hour traffic if somebody is obstructing traffic flow and the rest would have a big impact on the number of people who die/are injured every year in accidents.

Wishbone Ash

su_dios wrote:

Yeah thats a good idea but it then forces people to start driving straight away and also relies on the list still being at 52 weeks

104 weeks.

furtzy

su_dios wrote:

Haha yes very good point there, my bad!:D

Furtzy seems to be the only one on here that has a problem with learner drivers.




I'm sure your next post yet again will have some reference to how good a driver you are and how much you know!:p

Never said anything about being a good driver. Just stated how long I'd been driving and what I'd driven....actually said I'm stll learning.

Don't have a problem with learner drivers at all. In fact I am always more than tolerant with them and give them extra room and time.

Just have a problem with people thinking they are experienced after driving only 8 months and never passed a test

hobochris

C.D. wrote:

TBH, the Irish system is useless. Here is alist of things that should be covered, but you won't learn for/from your test or in lessons.

1) Emergency braking, major major issue, how to safely bring your car to a stop in a dangerous situation.

2) Motorway driving and etiquette. Big no-brainer; this should be taught.

3) Night time driving.

4) Parallel Parking.

5) Driving under hazardous conditions. How to drive in snow, fog, ice etc.

6) Combination of 5 and 1. Braking under hazardous conditions.

7) How not to lose control of your car (oversteer, understeer, brakes locking etc.)

8) What to do in an emergency situation- what if you are involved in an accident?

9) Deal with minor breakdowns that could cause traffic disruption- change a tyre etc.

It's things like these which need to be taught. #9 would make a big difference in rush-hour traffic if somebody is obstructing traffic flow and the rest would have a big impact on the number of people who die/are injured every year in accidents.

some good points...
personally, i feel that everyone should be made learn to drive a truck aswell, as a higher degree of care and road training is required..as you learn to aticipate things more in advance then you do driving a car... which lets face it would not be a bad thing to learn.

unkel

Lorax wrote:

Stop being an arsehole, seriously.

Stop that personal abuse, seriously. Next time you're banned

galwaytt

swingking wrote:

The law doesn't scare me, but if I crash, will my insurance be voided (can't claim from my insurance due to me being on my own)

Technically, you are in breach of your insurance contract. You are contracted to cover under the condition that you are licenced to drive, and therefore any conditions attached to the licence have to be satisfied for you to be fully covered. In reality, the ins co probably wouldn't fail to pay a 3rd party on foot of a claim you were involved in - but - and it's a big one - they are now getting in the habit of then going after the policy holder under a separate case, to recover all the costs involved, through civil court. This new clause appeared on ins policy schedules a few years ago, which you signed.........

I have seen loads of people who drive on their own on first provisional licenses.

..so? what kind of defence will that be if you have an accident.......??

Surely they wouldn't do this if there insurance would be voided

....thou doth protest too much, methinks..........

Capt'n Midnight

Wishbone Ash wrote:

A work colleague has been driving for 35 years on a provisional. :eek:

Perhaps they should make it mandatory to apply for a test before granting the first provisional.

Sounds like a big fib, why didn't they apply for the amnesty back in 1979 ??

Enforce existing laws first. Have Guards on duty during rush hour when people can't move at lights, better still near a park and ride or other car park. If you can't produce a valid license on the spot, you park the car and can't reclaim it until a driver with a valid license arrives. They note down the occupants of the car and photograph them so you can't falsely claim there was a full license with you. They also apply penalty points if appropiate and do a check on tax etc. Also if you don't have L plates up they do you for that. IIRC you have 14 days to produce tax + insurance + license at the station, and again if it ain't valid you get nailed, especially if they caught you on a motorway slipway.

This week traffic was light. I'll repeat what I've said before. If the reduction in traffic because schools are off means traffic flows, then simply removing those who have no legal right to be on the road should do the same.

Or maybe lean on the insurance companies for aiding and abeting this stuff. If a driver is in an accident then if they were in breach of the license conditions only third party would apply. The insurance company could then be fined if they paid out to cover the car.

Also double points for anyone driving unaccompanied illegally, Or no concurency - you keep each point earned not just the maximum - if you incur a greater risk to other road users then you get more points.

As for the 300,000 who haven't applied for a test, send out a letter to anyone not on second provisional reminding of the penalties for driving unaccompanied and reminding them of the waiting list and that if they don't apply in the next 6 months they go to the back of the list, on the basis they couldn't be bothered. This will generate cash flow.
Next - since the waiting time will be over a year for those at the end of the list, you don't renew the license because it will be impossible for them to do the test on it. You only renew their licenses when the waiting time drops below a year. - this would only apply to those who have waited more than a year in the past to apply for a test.

Also bring in the UK regs. - to give instruction to a learner you need 3 year clean license, also driving instructors need certification. Also get the advertising standards down on those who advertise 90% test passes.

Bring in the NI regs on restricted drivers too - perhaps for those who don't get the test by the end of the second license, as an incentive to apply early.

Wishbone Ash

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Sounds like a big fib, why didn't they apply for the amnesty back in 1979 ??

The 1979 amnesty was only granted to provsional licence holders who were on their second licence and who were on the driving test waiting list on a particular date (October 1st??) that year. Presumably my work colleague didn't meet both qualifying criteria.

There was no advance notice given to prevent people from applying just to avail of the amnesty.

Capt'n Midnight

Wishbone Ash wrote:

There was no advance notice given to prevent people from applying just to avail of the amnesty.

My friends mother applied for a truck license for the crack, and got it. So there must have been strong rumours. - Bet they are kicking themselves for not applying

Thank goodness for the EU, otherwise they would have done it again.

Until people in this country NEED a full license to drive, the driving test will remain optional.

Wishbone Ash

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

My friends mother applied for a truck license for the crack, and got it.

Is it possible that you may be confusing it with the pre test era (before 1964) when one merely ticked the categories and paid for the licence.

Or you may be confusing it with the older licences which gave a light truck (now C1) with the car licence.

jhegarty

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

As for the 300,000 who haven't applied for a test, send out a letter to anyone not on second provisional reminding of the penalties for driving unaccompanied and reminding them of the waiting list and that if they don't apply in the next 6 months they go to the back of the list, on the basis they couldn't be bothered. This will generate cash flow.
Next - since the waiting time will be over a year for those at the end of the list, you don't renew the license because it will be impossible for them to do the test on it. You only renew their licenses when the waiting time drops below a year. - this would only apply to those who have waited more than a year in the past to apply for a test.

So if people don't apply for the test you will put them to the back of the list they are not on...


then you don't allow people who didn't do a thing wrong to get a licenses until the test (that they can't apply for without a licenses) has a waiting list less than a year....

Victor

C.D. wrote:

Hmm.. that is like saying.. 40% of all driver road deaths involve alcohol. So 60% of those people die when sober. So its safer to be drunk. If we have 1000 car journeys, 950 sober and 50 taken while drunk and 100 overall road deaths it means that 40 out 50 drunk people died and 60 out of 950 sober people died. I pulled these figures out of the air, but only to illustrate that you're wrong.

I think the figures tend to be in the order of 0.5% in breath tests.

C.D.

Victor wrote:

I think the figures tend to be in the order of 0.5% in breath tests.

It wasn't so much to do with actual DD stats, as a general illustration as to how easy it is to misinterpret statistics in general.

bo-bo

we have a woefull attitude to driving in this country. a culture of nonchalance towards rules and regulations definitely exists amongst full licence holders and provisional licence holders. come to think of it, pedestrians can even be factored into that statement (thats another days work however).

generalising and sweeping statement, i know, but i feel our levels of road deaths and injuries proves this.

at the moment the gardai use their powers of discretion when dealing with provisional licence holders. rightly so in my opinion, but that is the right of the gardai to exercise discretion NOT the right of the 1st provisional licence holder to drive unaccompanied.

it is also worth remembering that our laws in relation to this issue are not representative of our current climate, they were brought in for a bygone era.

i dont have any one single opinion on the issue, suffice to say that i feel the law needs to be changed and enforced.

one very small thing which has yet to be mentioned: when you sign for a provisional licence you are signing an undertaking that you know and are farmiliar with all the rules of the road and applicable legistlation. it is then granted to you on this basis.

just my thoughts..............

bo-bo

*familiar* ooops

galwaytt

a few years ago I was involved in surveying a bike club, and found that a number of people were still on their provisional.............after 20+ years. How that is physically possible, I have no idea - the co co staff who issue such licences should be reprimanded and disciplined for negligence.........or something........it's just daft.

As for writing to the 300k people on the list........excluding stationery, labour, that's another € 144,000 just for the stamps, then.............I can think of much better things to do with the money.