Any garda checkpoints out today?

Sam Vimes

As the title suggests, were there any garda check points this morning trying to catch L drivers unaccompanied?

does anyone know if the gardai are actually going to enforce this or will they just use it as an excuse to fine people that annoy them while letting normal people go?

my girlfriend has her driving test on monday and she doesn't have anyone to acompany her to the test. personally i think she'd be crazy to show up at the test having just broken the law to get there in the first week of the new rules. it's one thing driving around and hoping that the gardai will let you off but as everyone knows, testers will fail you for the tiniest of reasons and i think that committing an offence that carries a €1000 fine is all the excuse they'd need.

what do people think? will she be ok if she shows up at the test with no one accompanying her?

beerbaron

If she did show up with someone else to accompany her, would the tester have any right to request to see their full licence ?

The test begins and ends at the test centre, so she would be accompanied throughout the entire test by a licenced driver.

Dingatron

Personally I'd bring someone with me even a non driver as they wouldn't know the difference. There was a thread recently where someone was failed because there was a faint smell of smoke in the instructors car and the guy didn't even smoke.

Sam Vimes

beerbaron wrote: »

The test begins and ends at the test centre, so she would be accompanied throughout the entire test by a licenced driver.

but what about getting to the test centre in the first place?

Sam Vimes

could it be that getting to the test centre is not considered part of the test so they can't fail you for it?

Sherifu

I'd probably chance it if it was me.

whiskeyman

I'd imagine they'll be clever and be selective about this.

Expect to see a few roadblocks in the areas around Punchestown next weekend. Should be a very high proportion of prov licence drivers around there.

beerbaron

Sam Vimes wrote: »

could it be that getting to the test centre is not considered part of the test so they can't fail you for it?

Thats essentially what I meant, we might here from some of the posters on Learning To Drive on how their tests went today.

SheroN

I can't see how they can fail her for not having a licensed driver in the car on the drive to the test centre. The test starts once you sit down and they start asking you questions, as long as there's not a box on the test sheet they fill out they can't mark negativly for it.

And anyways, she could always say someone was in the car with her but they walked off after she parked up.

_feedback_

Sam Vimes wrote: »

my girlfriend has her driving test on monday and she doesn't have anyone to acompany her to the test. personally i think she'd be crazy to show up at the test having just broken the law to get there

People have been driving unaccompanied to the test for a long time now!

Ref the bit in bold ... Just hire a driving instructor.

Sam Vimes

SheroN wrote: »

I can't see how they can fail her for not having a licensed driver in the car on the drive to the test centre. The test starts once you sit down and they start asking you questions, as long as there's not a box on the test sheet they fill out they can't mark negativly for it.

And anyways, she could always say someone was in the car with her but they walked off after she parked up.

yeah she can say that but testers aren't stupid. they'll probably have heard that excuse 1000 times when she sits her test next week. if they have the power to fail her for it, i can't see that working

biko

Tell her to park far away and walk the last 300 meters or so. They'll think she took the bus or walked or summit.
Bicycle in boot?

Sam Vimes

elviscostello wrote: »

People have been driving unaccompanied to the test for a long time now!

Ref the bit in bold ... Just hire a driving instructor.

yes people have been driving unaccompanied to the test for a long time now. i drove unaccompanied to my test. however, i didn't do it in the same week as new legislation was brought in saying i would be fined €1000 and possibly imprisoned for doing it.

that's the same thing people said a few years ago about drink driving

Steve

I don't think the tester can fail her for this - how's he to know how she got there. For all he knows, she could have got the car delivered by helicopter.

She does run the risk of getting stopped at a checkpoint and getting pulled for driving unaccompanied - this could delay her enough to miss the test altogether.

Sam Vimes

biko wrote: »

Tell her to park far away and walk the last 300 meters or so. They'll think she took the bus or walked or summit.
Bicycle in boot?

but she's doing the test in her own car. maybe she can say she brought her car on the bus

connundrum

elviscostello wrote: »

Ref the bit in bold ... Just hire a driving instructor.

Bingo! Get her to do the test in the driving instructor's car. That way the instructor will be there all the way - I find that people who use instructor's cars have a greater pass rate anyways*

No garda checkpoints today anyway, although I have seen a huge increase in the last couple of weeks. Last year I drove for 7-8 months without encountering a checkpoint, and in the last 3 weeks I've come across 4.

I have noticed a sizeable decrease in the amount of L Plates visible on cars today though, now people are breaking one more law in not driving with L Plates clearly visible.

*Poll of 7 friends taken in the last year

johnnyrotten

biko wrote: »

Tell her to park far away and walk the last 300 meters or so. They'll think she took the bus or walked or summit.
Bicycle in boot?

Summit?

Sam Vimes

connundrum wrote: »

Bingo! Get her to do the test in the driving instructor's car. That way the instructor will be there all the way - I find that people who use instructor's cars have a greater pass rate anyways*

i'd be inclined to think the exact opposite. she's been driving her own car for two years now and i don't think the driving test is the best time to be trying to get used to driving a new car.

the driving instructor idea is good though

Sam Vimes

johnnyrotten wrote: »

Summit?

summit=something

Steve_o

AFAIK, you can't be failed for anything you do when the tester is not in the car... so driving to the centre unaccompanied shouldn't get you failed.

SheroN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

summit=something

You're making a massive deal out of nothing with this.

A tester will not fail her for this, it's none of their business how she got there. There's no box on the test sheet for "DId the candidate drive down with a fully liscensed driver?" hence they cannot fail her for it.

If she's stopped by a checkpoint on the way to her test and she shows them her letter of application, I would doubt very much any garda would have a problem with her being in the car on her own.

_feedback_

SheroN wrote: »

If she's stopped by a checkpoint on the way to her test and she shows them her letter of application, I would doubt very much any garda would have a problem with her being in the car on her own.

Yeah another good point

mikemac

connundrum wrote: »

I have noticed a sizeable decrease in the amount of L Plates visible on cars today though, now people are breaking one more law in not driving with L Plates clearly visible.

I can understand why this happens as people don't want to attract attention to themsleves but will they be hit with an extra fine if they get caught for driving unaccompanied and with no L plates too?
OT: What's with people who put L plates outside their car, upside down or even trim off the white part?

Dingatron wrote: »

Personally I'd bring someone with me even a non driver as they wouldn't know the difference. There was a thread recently where someone was failed because there was a faint smell of smoke in the instructors car and the guy didn't even smoke.

The instructor is entitled to work (car is his workplace) in a smoke free environment. I read the thread and the tester was entitled to fail the driver. It's the driving instructor who hired out the car who should be paying for the retest and refunding the money paid for hiring the car

Sam Vimes

SheroN wrote: »

You're making a massive deal out of nothing with this.

A tester will not fail her for this, it's none of their business how she got there. There's no box on the test sheet for "DId the candidate drive down with a fully liscensed driver?" hence they cannot fail her for it.

If she's stopped by a checkpoint on the way to her test and she shows them her letter of application, I would doubt very much any garda would have a problem with her being in the car on her own.

there are several boxes for dangerous driving though. not everything you can be failed for is itemised, they fall into categories. if you can fail for your car smelling slightly of smoke i'd say committing a criminal offence to take your test might just do it too.

i've seen someone fail because it had been raining and she had the window open so her passenger seat was wet. that's not on the sheet either

if it was six months down the road i'd say it'd be grand but of all times you'd think they'd be cracking down on it in the first 7 days of the new legislation

Wishbone Ash

Sam Vimes wrote: »

personally i think she'd be crazy to show up at the test having just broken the law to get there in the first week of the new rules

The regulation that commenced at midnight, only applies to those on their 2nd Provisional Licence/Learner Permit in Category B.

All other learners in Category B were always required to be accompanied as are those with any Provisional Licence/Learner Permits in the other categories with the exception of those in Categories A, A1, M and W.

Sam Vines wrote:

testers will fail you for the tiniest of reasons

To be unsuccessful in a driving test one must have incurred a very serious fault or have repeated a less serious fault several times during the 25 minute drive.

One cannot fail for the "tiniest of reasons"! It's an urban myth or 'pub talk'.

beerbaron wrote: »

If she did show up with someone else to accompany her, would the tester have any right to request to see their full licence ?

No.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

could it be that getting to the test centre is not considered part of the test so they can't fail you for it?

The test begins when the candidate is called from the waiting room. How the candidate got to the test centre is not within the remit of the examiner.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

they'll probably have heard that excuse 1000 times when she sits her test next week. if they have the power to fail her for it, i can't see that working

They don't ask - itis not within their remit to do so. If it was, the accompanied driver would have to show their licence etc.

Wishbone Ash

Sam Vimes wrote: »

if you can fail for your car smelling slightly of smoke ....
..........i've seen someone fail because it had been raining and she had the window open so her passenger seat was wet

You are confusing a 'failure' with a test being 'abandoned'.

If you arrive with, for example, no L plates displayed, the test is abandoned. It's not a failure (althought it's back to square one for the candidate).

Sam Vimes

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

The regulation that commenced at midnight, only applies to those on their 2nd Provisional Licence/Learner Permit in Category B.

All other learners in Category B were always required to be accompanied as are those with any Provisional Licence/Learner Permits in the other categories with the exception of those in Categories A, A1, M and W.

i wish people would stop saying that. every person in the country, including you, knows that in practise being on a first, second or seventh provisional meant nothing. the new law means cracking down on everyone. the old situation (not the law) meant cracking down on no one

and she's on her second provisional anyway

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

The test begins when the candidate is called from the waiting room. How the candidate got to the test centre is not within the remit of the examiner.

They don't ask - itis not within their remit to do so. If it was, the accompanied driver would have to show their licence etc.

well they didn't ask but the law was different at 11:59 last night.

do you have some inside knowledge on this? are you 100% sure that the instructors have no entitlement to ask the student if they broke the law to get to the testing centre? if so, happy days

Sam Vimes

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

You are confusing a 'failure' with a test being 'abandoned'.

If you arrive with, for example, no L plates displayed, the test is abandoned. It's not a failure (althought it's back to square one for the candidate).

i'm not confusing failing with the test being abandoned. i know what the difference is. i just didn't feel the need to be so precise since the result is exactly the same for the student and everyone knows what i mean

and what if they put up L plates before the tester takes them out? if they can fail them for breaking one law on the way to the test but not actually in the test, why not another? i thought that "How the candidate got to the test centre is not within the remit of the examiner."

Steve

Sam Vimes wrote: »

do you have some inside knowledge on this? are you 100% sure that the instructors have no entitlement to ask the student if they broke the law to get to the testing centre? if so, happy days

A tester is no more entitled to ask that than you are. Thats what Guards are for. Do you think the tester will also ask if they broke the speed limit on the way to the test, or if they parked illegally outside the shops when they stopped for a bottle of water on the way?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

and what if they put up L plates before the tester takes them out? if they can fail them for breaking one law on the way to the test but not actually in the test, why not another?

You're not getting it - they don't fail for this, they refuse to do the test because the candidate is not legally able to drive without L-plates.

Sam Vimes

stevec wrote: »

A tester is no more entitled to ask that than you are. Thats what Guards are for. Do you think the tester will also ask if they broke the speed limit on the way to the test, or if they parked illegally outside the shops when they stopped for a bottle of water on the way?

an average citizen is not allowed request to see your license for example. driving instructors have more entitlements than normal people

stevec wrote: »

You're not getting it - they don't fail for this, they refuse to do the test because the candidate is not legally able to drive without L-plates.

so why not just provide them with L plates? surely they have some, or allow the student to put their own up that they have in the glove compartment

Steve

Sam Vimes wrote: »

an average citizen is not allowed request to see your license for example. driving instructors have more entitlements than normal people

:rolleyes:
AFAIK the only special dispensation they have is exemption from wearing a seatbelt - that may be gone now though.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

so why not just provide them with L plates? surely they have some, or allow the student to put their own up that they have in the glove compartment

Probably the same reason the testers don't have a stock of spare wiper blades in case they're needed.

dade

if they ask did ya come with a fully licensed drive say yes and they've gone for a walk they'll be back in an hour.

Sam Vimes

stevec wrote: »

:rolleyes:
AFAIK the only special dispensation they have is exemption from wearing a seatbelt - that may be gone now though.

please don't roll your eyes at me.

testers are entitled to ask you things about your car and your knowledge of the road and test your driving competence and allow or prevent you from driving accordingly. whether or not you broke the law to take your test comes under the umbrella of driving competence imo.

stevec wrote: »

Probably the same reason the testers don't have a stock of spare wiper blades in case they're needed.

wishbone ash said that the test is abandoned if they arrive without L plates.

i asked what if they put them up when the tester points it out

you said they fail them because they can't legally drive without L plates

that doesn't answer my question


edit:sorry i used the word failed and not "test abandoned"

Sam Vimes

dade wrote: »

if they ask did ya come with a fully licensed drive say yes and they've gone for a walk they'll be back in an hour.

imo, a dangerous risk to take. if they are allowed to ask, one would assume they're required to check. for example, if they ask to see your license, you can't say "ah i left it at home but i have one i swear".

and tbh, it insults the testers intelligence to tell such an obvious lie

if they're not allowed to ask, happy days

Wishbone Ash

Sam Vimes wrote: »

wishbone ash said that someone is failed if the arrive without L plates

Sam, you're being pedantic now. Yes I did say 'arrive' but i will rephrase it.

"Your vehicle must display 'L' plates front and rear. Otherwise the test will be abandoned".

You asked a couple of questions which were answered in good faith. Posters have gone out of their way to help you. Now you don't seem to want to accept their answers!

Sam Vimes

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Sam, you're being pedantic now. Yes I did say 'arrive' but i will rephrase it.

you started it with the whole failed versus test abandoned thing

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

"Your vehicle must display 'L' plates front and rear. Otherwise the test will be abandoned".

fair enough

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

You asked a couple of questions which were answered in good faith. Posters have gone out of their way to help you. Now you don't seem to want to accept their answers!

if i ask a question it doesn't mean i have to accept whatever answers are given to me, right or wrong. i've got some 'imo's and some 'afaik's and some experiences from before the new laws. if it was someone else's thread i'd probably accept the answers but when it's my girlfriend facing another few months waiting for her test and some hefty fines, i'm looking for something more definite.

i can see what people are saying here. it's unlikely that the tester will ask but if it was you facing months of not being able to get to work, would you accept 'afaik' as an answer?

SheroN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you started it with the whole failed versus test abandoned thing


fair enough



if i ask a question it doesn't mean i have to accept whatever answers are given to me, right or wrong. i've got some 'imo's and some 'afaik's and some experiences from before the new laws. if it was someone else's thread i'd probably accept the answers but when it's my girlfriend facing another few months waiting for her test and some hefty fines, i'm looking for something more definite.

i can see what people are saying here. it's unlikely that the tester will ask but if it was you facing months of not being able to get to work, would you accept 'afaik' as an answer?

Why did you bother asking the questions if you're not going to take any ones points on board?

Just ring up the test centre and ask them what the story is. That or sort someone out to go to the test centre with your girlfriend.

Sam Vimes

SheroN wrote: »

Why did you bother asking the questions if you're not going to take any ones points on board?

i've got some 'imo's and some 'afaik's and some experiences from before the new laws. if it was someone else's thread i'd probably accept the answers but when it's my girlfriend facing another few months waiting for her test and some hefty fines, i'm looking for something more definite.

SheroN wrote: »

Just ring up the test centre and ask them what the story is. That or sort someone out to go to the test centre with your girlfriend.

i was thinking of ringing the test centre but i can't picture them saying anything but "of course you need to have someone in the car on the way to the test". i just can't see them condoning breaking the new laws over the phone. but that wouldn't leave me any closer to knowing if they're actually going to do anything about it

sorting someone to go with the gf is of course the ideal solution

sonners

If its a definitive answer your looking for then ring the test centre. All your going to get here is opinions and past experiences which no longer fully apply.

Steve

Sam Vimes wrote: »

if i ask a question it doesn't mean i have to accept whatever answers are given to me, right or wrong. i've got some 'imo's and some 'afaik's and some experiences from before the new laws. if it was someone else's thread i'd probably accept the answers but when it's my girlfriend facing another few months waiting for her test and some hefty fines, i'm looking for something more definite.

i can see what people are saying here. it's unlikely that the tester will ask but if it was you facing months of not being able to get to work, would you accept 'afaik' as an answer?

Were you really going to let your girlfriend risk getting stopped by the guards on the way to her test based on advise you got on the internet?

You don't seem...... fukkit not going there..

Just sort out a driver and BE LEGAL like everyone else in the country must.;)

Sam Vimes

stevec wrote: »

Were you really going to let your girlfriend risk getting stopped by the guards on the way to her test based on advise you got on the internet?

You don't seem...... fukkit not going there..

well...yes. i asked in a forum with over 100,000 members if any of them saw any evidence of check points around the country and i posted the thread a week in advance of her test to give just one of those 100,000 people a chance to say they saw one. i'd consider it fairly reliable tbh.

stevec wrote: »

Just sort out a driver and BE LEGAL like everyone else in the country must.;)

well that's what i was telling her but....

Steve

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i've got some 'imo's and some 'afaik's and some experiences from before the new laws. if it was someone else's thread i'd probably accept the answers but when it's my girlfriend facing another few months waiting for her test and some hefty fines, i'm looking for something more definite.

Youre here since 2005 with nearly 8000 posts and you started this in AH looking for serious answers....:eek:

/facepalm

Sam Vimes

stevec wrote: »

Youre here since 2005 with nearly 8000 posts and you started this in AH looking for serious answers....:eek:

/facepalm

oh ffs. yes AH has a reputation for silly answers but not every single post on every single thread is taking the piss. all it would take is one single person to give a serious answer. it does occasionally happen. for example, there have been no piss taking posts on this thread

connundrum

micmclo wrote: »

I can understand why this happens as people don't want to attract attention to themsleves but will they be hit with an extra fine if they get caught for driving unaccompanied and with no L plates too?
OT: What's with people who put L plates outside their car, upside down or even trim off the white part?

From [url]www.rsa.ie:[/url]

It is a penal offence for the holder of a learner permit (provisional licence) for vehicles of category B, C1, C, D1, D, EB, EC1, EC, ED1 or ED, to drive such a vehicle unless there are displayed on the vehicle rectangular plates or signs bearing the letter “L” not less than 15 centimetres high in red on a white ground, in clearly visible vertical positions to the front and rear of the vehicle.

I couldn't find anything about what fine/points an offender may receive.

TwoShedsJackson

People are just posting questions and hoping to get the answers they want to hear so they can carry on/start ignoring the new regulations. I guarantee if anyone gets a 'no you can no longer do that legally' response, they ignore it.

Stop looking to get your behaviour reinforced and start coping with the new regulations. Hopefully in ten years time we'll be wondering how the **** learners were ever let drive around on their own, in much the same way as most people sitting in a pub now may be thinking 'how the hell did I ever sit in here in a fog of smoke for ten years?'

Steve

Sam Vimes wrote: »

oh ffs. yes AH has a reputation for silly answers but not every single post on every single thread is taking the piss. all it would take is one single person to give a serious answer. it does occasionally happen. for example, there have been no piss taking posts on this thread

What I meant by that was:

1. AH is the most popular forum on boards so yes, it'll get exposure but AH is also full of meaningless crap - that's the way it is. The AH charter also frowns on posting here for 'more exposure' but that doesn't really count because its up to the mods to decide what rules to apply.

2. Motors, the 2nd most popular forum on boards, which is read by people who are actually interested in motoring and where bullshit answers aren't really to be expected just might have been a better place to start it and it would certainly have gotten better 'quality' exposure.

This thread needs some silliness now so:
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/7/1/iisakompanymy128593848478406571.jpg

*please don't try this

Sam Vimes

stevec wrote: »

[url=
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/7/1/iisakompanymy128593848478406571.jpg]Sam Vimes girlfriend's accompanied driver[/url]

but the important question is: has it had it's license for two years!!

WoollyRedHat

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As the title suggests, were there any garda check points this morning trying to catch L drivers unaccompanied?

does anyone know if the gardai are actually going to enforce this or will they just use it as an excuse to fine people that annoy them while letting normal people go?

my girlfriend has her driving test on monday and she doesn't have anyone to acompany her to the test. personally i think she'd be crazy to show up at the test having just broken the law to get there in the first week of the new rules. it's one thing driving around and hoping that the gardai will let you off but as everyone knows, testers will fail you for the tiniest of reasons and i think that committing an offence that carries a €1000 fine is all the excuse they'd need.

what do people think? will she be ok if she shows up at the test with no one accompanying her?

This whole legislation is a load of crap. This existed long before today, with the exception for those on their second provisional licence, yet you had to have someone accompany you for your first, third and fourth. The only that has changed is that now all those on their second will have to have someone accompany them as well. The fact that this loophole existed in the first place is laughable.

The government don't even seem to be bothered to implent the legislation properly. If you were watching the Vincent Brown show the other night, Noel Ahern, Minister of state with speciak duties to road safety was on to discuss it and when questioned about it, it was revealed there wouldn't be a crackdown and if you were caught unaccompanied with an L plate, you could be given a warning or a fine or whatever, but then allowed to drive off. Noel Ahern didn't have a clue what he was talking about except rambling on about statistics that weren't even relevant to the question on hand. It's a sloppy piece of legislation by Fianna Fail tbh.

Steve

Sam Vimes wrote: »

but the important question is: has it had it's license for two years!!

Not sure if it should be let out alone yet...:pac:

(dunno what happened the link, fixed now, the usual [*url=.....]....[/*url] didn't seem to work:()

keen

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As the title suggests, were there any garda check points this morning trying to catch L drivers unaccompanied?

does anyone know if the gardai are actually going to enforce this or will they just use it as an excuse to fine people that annoy them while letting normal people go?

my girlfriend has her driving test on monday and she doesn't have anyone to acompany her to the test. personally i think she'd be crazy to show up at the test having just broken the law to get there in the first week of the new rules. it's one thing driving around and hoping that the gardai will let you off but as everyone knows, testers will fail you for the tiniest of reasons and i think that committing an offence that carries a €1000 fine is all the excuse they'd need.

what do people think? will she be ok if she shows up at the test with no one accompanying her?

The Guards aren't directly looking for L drivers on their own so there will be no checkpoints for this reason only.

JimmyCrackCorn!

Its raining so no:rolleyes: