A technicality...

Hagar

A somewhat tongue in cheek question...

When taking a driving test is the applicant now entitled to ask to see the examiners licence to ensure that he will be in full compliance with the new regulations regarding driving un-accompanied? And if not, why not? There is no guarantee that the examiner has a current valid licence unless you see it.

ec18

or has held it for a minimum of 2 years :P

guil

i'm sure that the rsa has records of every testers licence and would know if it was out of date

wil

Long time no see H
A very valid point. Wouldnt want him failing you cos he knew his licence was for tractors only or out of date. Wouldnt you want to check his testing credentials too. They say you should never take a taxi without noting the drivers number. Maybe should do same with a tester.

Hagar wrote: »

A somewhat tongue in cheek question...

When taking a driving test is the applicant now entitled to ask to see the examiners licence to ensure that he will be in full compliance with the new regulations regarding driving un-accompanied? And if not, why not? There is no guarantee that the examiner has a current valid licence unless you see it.

pa990

i agree, i think you should insist on asking to see the examiners licence.

Antagonizing him cant do any harm..

Capt'n Midnight

But how would you feel if you failed you test because the tester couldn't take you out. Of course you would get a free re-test at some stage.

Alanstrainor

Hagar wrote: »

A somewhat tongue in cheek question...

When taking a driving test is the applicant now entitled to ask to see the examiners licence to ensure that he will be in full compliance with the new regulations regarding driving un-accompanied? And if not, why not? There is no guarantee that the examiner has a current valid licence unless you see it.

The applicant was always entitled to ask that question, but the rsa would have regular checks to make sure that an examiner wouldn't be in a situation that they themselves wouldn't have a valid license.

Hagar

Alanstrainor wrote: »

The applicant was always entitled to ask that question,

Indeed they were, but are they not legally obliged to now?

Technically you could be failed right off for not ensuring the examiner's licence was valid regardless of how good we all believe the RSA records and procedures to be. Mistakes can happen, particularly in a bureaucracy.

I suppose a certificate could be made available to the applicant stating that he had asked for the examiner's licence to be produced and had thus fulfilled his responsibilities. It would protect the privacy of the examiner whose home address would be on the licence.

Sup08

The tester under the new law is not regarded as the qualified driver during the test as they are not insured to drive the vehicle.
The qualified driver must be insured in the vehicle and is responsible for teaching during their time in the vehicle.
The change in the law means that any person on a provisional license/learner permit should only be driving while being thought how to drive.

Alanstrainor

Sup08 wrote: »

The tester under the new law is not regarded as the qualified driver during the test as they are not insured to drive the vehicle.
The qualified driver must be insured in the vehicle and is responsible for teaching during their time in the vehicle.

That is complete and utter rubbish.
The accompanying driver does not have to be insured on the learner drivers vehicle. And the tester is regarded as a qualified driver. If he/she wasn't the learner driver would be breaking the law sitting the test.
Please don't post misguided advise, it only serves to confuse posters on this forum.

Sup08

Alanstrainor wrote: »

That is complete and utter rubbish.

Sorry man but this is true, the tester is not responsible for the applicant during the test. Please contact the RSA if you wish!!

jhegarty

Sup08 wrote: »

Sorry man but this is true, the tester is not responsible for the applicant during the test. Please contact the RSA if you wish!!

so under that theory you could get a €1000 fine while out on your driving test ? i think not.

Alanstrainor

Sup08 wrote: »

Sorry man but this is true, the tester is not responsible for the applicant during the test. Please contact the RSA if you wish!!

I think you've got yourself confused. The examiner must have held his or her license for two years, therefore you are entitled to ask them for their license. You are making little sense.

Sup08

No I am not confused. Just because the examiner has to of held his/her license for 5 years (actually) with no penalties or endorsemants, still does not make them the learners qualified driver.
This is because the examiner cannot be responsible for a person they may have never met before and do not know how good or bad this driver may be.
Also they are not subject to the new law in this case. An example of this would be the examiner/tester cannot be breathalised at a random checkpoint during the exam.
I can ssure you that there would be some uproar from driving testers (government or private) if they thought they were responsible for the driver during the test.
So for clarity on this you can contact the RSA as I said in my previous post or you can ask a tester at your local test centre if you wish.

sonicthebadger*

Alanstrainor wrote: »

That is complete and utter rubbish.
The accompanying driver does not have to be insured on the learner drivers vehicle. And the tester is regarded as a qualified driver. If he/she wasn't the learner driver would be breaking the law sitting the test.
Please don't post misguided advise, it only serves to confuse posters on this forum.

I have no knowledge of the actual wording of the law regarding the test and accompanying driver but is not the whole point of the test to record the applicants behaviour in conditions likely to be found on any normal day for a fully licenced driver. Thus not having a fully qualified driver with you specifically for the duration of the test is essential. Therefore the test is a special case and that particular law is not intended for application during it.

dudara

I presume that it's similar to the seat belt exemption that driving testers also have.

Sup08

dudara wrote: »

I presume that it's similar to the seat belt exemption that driving testers also have.

A very good example of the exemption to these laws for testers.

Hagar

Must the applicant now be accompanied during his test by a qualified accompanying driver and the tester?

wil

Hagar wrote: »

Must the applicant now be accompanied during his test by a qualified accompanying driver and the tester?

and perhaps a parent or guardian if they are under 18, plus an interpreter if they dont speak English, the kids if they cant find a childminder etc.
Better do a bus licence:D

Hanley

Sup08 wrote: »

No I am not confused. Just because the examiner has to of held his/her license for 5 years (actually) with no penalties or endorsemants, still does not make them the learners qualified driver.
This is because the examiner cannot be responsible for a person they may have never met before and do not know how good or bad this driver may be.
Also they are not subject to the new law in this case. An example of this would be the examiner/tester cannot be breathalised at a random checkpoint during the exam.
I can ssure you that there would be some uproar from driving testers (government or private) if they thought they were responsible for the driver during the test.
So for clarity on this you can contact the RSA as I said in my previous post or you can ask a tester at your local test centre if you wish.

Surely by your reasoning any person with a full license who accompanies one with a learner permit is taking "responsibility" for them. Does that mean they become liable in a crash?

I was under the impression that the licensed driver was there to offer guidance and take control if necessary. I didn't think that they assumed a duty of care.

jhegarty

Hagar wrote: »

Must the applicant now be accompanied during his test by a qualified accompanying driver and the tester?

Well under the theory on this thread everyone should fail their driving test as soon as they start driving because they are driving illegally...

Alanstrainor

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

I have no knowledge of the actual wording of the law regarding the test and accompanying driver but is not the whole point of the test to record the applicants behaviour in conditions likely to be found on any normal day for a fully licenced driver. Thus not having a fully qualified driver with you specifically for the duration of the test is essential. Therefore the test is a special case and that particular law is not intended for application during it.

???
The examiner does not give the learner driver any advise during the test, only instruction as to where to go and when to do each of the manoeuvres, so your point about "not having a fully qualified driver with you specifically for the duration of the test is essential", makes little sanse, driving instructors as well as examiners may drive without a seatbelt incase they need to take control of the car.

sonicthebadger*

Alanstrainor wrote: »

???
The examiner does not give the learner driver any advise during the test, only instruction as to where to go and when to do each of the manoeuvres, so your point about "not having a fully qualified driver with you specifically for the duration of the test is essential", makes little sanse, driving instructors as well as examiners may drive without a seatbelt incase they need to take control of the car.

Sorry, really didn't make my point clearly there. What I mean is that during the test the applicant must show their driving skills not "their driving skills when driving with a qualified driver". Therefore it is essential for the examiner (or anyone else who may happen to be in the car) not to be acting as the applicant's advisor during the test. The examiner is not "your" fully qualified driver for the test because you are not allowed a fully qualified assistant during the test.

I think we're actually singing from the same hymn sheet, I just made my inital point very poorly.

I didn't mention seatbelts.

Alanstrainor

The examiner is not "your" fully qualified driver for the test because you are not allowed a fully qualified assistant during the test.

I think we're actually singing from the same hymn sheet, I just made my inital point very poorly.

I didn't mention seatbelts.

I think we were thinking the same, but just to clarify, the law does not change during the test, well as far as the accompanying driver is concerned. The examinor would be cinsidered your qualified accompanying driver.

Toto Wolfcastle

My mother just announced that she will be going to the test centre with my sister as she heard that her friend's neighbour was not allowed sit the test as he arrived at the centre unaccompanied.

Whether it's true or not, I don't know, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.

wil

Time gentlemen please;)

Hagars light hearted jibe in an attempt to lighten an otherwise heavy topic is being taken a tad too seriously.