Had a couple of drinks...

kleefarr

and being driven home by a learner.

I would imagine that this would be wrong, but what would the Garda say if they stopped you?

Neilw

kleefarr wrote: »

and being driven home by a learner.

I would imagine that this would be wrong, but what would the Garda say if they stopped you?

I think you can be charged for being drunk with a learner, I'm open to correction tho

GBX

kleefarr wrote: »

and being driven home by a learner.

I would imagine that this would be wrong, but what would the Garda say if they stopped you?

If your a fully licensed driver, the learner is not covered because the fully covered person should be respsonsible and be able to control of the vehicle.

Wishbone Ash

Neilw wrote: »

I think you can be charged for being drunk with a learner, I'm open to correction tho

No - the learner would be deemed to be driving 'unaccompanied'. No charges can be made against the 'accompanied' driver as it is the responsibility of the learner to ensure that they are appropriately accompanied.

Wishbone Ash

GBX wrote: »

the fully covered person should be respsonsible and be able to control of the vehicle.

That is not correct. There is no obligation for the accompanied driver to be insured to drive the vehicle therefore, they cannot be expected to 'control' the vehicle.

tossy

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

That is not correct. There is no obligation for the accompanied driver to be insured to drive the vehicle therefore, they cannot be expected to 'control' the vehicle.

+1 the reason for the fully qualified driver is support/advice and experience,i've never heard of anyone being done for driving while on a provisional license and being accompanied by a full license holder who wasn't insured to drive the car. :rolleyes:

GBX

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

That is not correct. There is no obligation for the accompanied driver to be insured to drive the vehicle therefore, they cannot be expected to 'control' the vehicle.

Sorry my explanation was wrong... im on a motorbike and this topic came up in the pub recently.

CharlieCroker

Ya, basically the Provisional driver can be prosecuted for driving unaccomponied.

kleefarr

But they would be accompanied.
The fully licenced driver would not be in charge of the vehicle.
What if learner was driving around with a fully licensed driver who was asleep?

robbie99

Here's Limerick Man's experience...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055488800

L-M

I actually had a fairly big thread on this a few months back, as I was in a car with a friend on Learner plates, and when pulled over by the Gardaí I was told that I was automatically deemed to be in control of the car, as I had a full licence, and could be done for drink driving. I was also told in the event of a crash, I would also be breathalyzed.

I never really followed it up, but it sounds like, and I was told by a different Garda that it was BS.

Wishbone Ash

kleefarr wrote: »

But they would be accompanied

Not in the legal sense of the term.

kleefarr wrote:

What if learner was driving around with a fully licensed driver who was asleep?

The accompanied licence holder must be "in a fit state". I see where you are coming from but you could be accused of splitting hairs!. Discretion and common sense would prevail methinks.

Wishbone Ash

Limerick man wrote: »

I was told that I was automatically deemed to be in control of the car, as I had a full licence, and could be done for drink driving. I was also told in the event of a crash, I would also be breathalyzed.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to what is said by the Gardai. In my experience, many have very little knowledge on the finer points of the Road Traffic Regulations.

kleefarr

BS as in.. can't be prosecuted?

As I just mentioned, a fully licensed driver accompanying a leaner, could be on the phone or asleep yet would probably not be held as responsible as opposed to if they had been drinking.

kleefarr

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Not in the legal sense of the term.



The accompanied licence holder must be "in a fit state". I see where you are coming from but you could be accused of splitting hairs!. Discretion and common sense would prevail methinks.

I get your point. (But you must mean accompanying licence holder surely?)

Could be crucial in court though. Not that I'm going anywhere near there just yet I hope.
It's just that my wife, who is on 'L' plates, asked if we went for a drink could she drive home.

Wishbone Ash

kleefarr wrote: »

a fully licensed driver accompanying a leaner, could be on the phone or asleep yet would probably not be held as responsible as opposed to if they had been drinking.

You're missing the point! The 'accompanied' licence holder cannot be held responsible for anything as it is the responsibility of the learner driver to ensure that they are legally accompanied. If the 'accompanied' driver doesn't meet the criteria, the learner is deemed to be 'unaccompanied'.

Wishbone Ash

kleefarr wrote: »

my wife, who is on 'L' plates, asked if we went for a drink could she drive home.

She could drive home but it would be illegal (unless she's driving a vehicle in categories, A, A1, M or W).

kleefarr

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

You're missing the point! The 'accompanied' licence holder cannot be held responsible for anything as it is the responsibility of the learner driver to ensure that they are legally accompanied. If the 'accompanied' driver doesn't meet the criteria, the learner is deemed to be 'unaccompanied'.

So she can, But if she gets caught, she gets done.
And if I'm a sleep she has to wake me up.
What about if I'm on the mobile phone?

colm_mcm

As we all know, the only driving a provisional driver does is while under instruction. we'd be doing them a disservice by being under the influence whilst instructing them.

Arcee

From the road safety authority... doesn't say they must be sober or insured on that vehicle but they definitely have to have a full license.

As a learner permit holder you are required to be accompanied by and be under the supervision of a person who has a full licence for a minimum of two years. If you are on your first, third or later provisional licence or learner permit for a category B vehicle, you must have a fully licensed driver with you.
From 30/06/08 holders of a 2nd learder permit or 2nd provisional licence for category 'B' must also be accompanied by a fully licensed driver.
Regardless of whether you are a provisional licence holder or a learner permit holder your accompanying driver must hold a current and valid full licence for the same category of vehicle for categories C1, C, D1, D, EC1, EC, ED1 and ED and be with you at all times when you are driving



http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/your-licence-and-vehicle/before-you-are-a-fully-licenced-driver/provisional-licence-holders.html

sogood

kleefarr wrote: »

So she can, But if she gets caught, she gets done.
And if I'm a sleep she has to wake me up.
What about if I'm on the mobile phone?

In reality I couldnt see either the "L" driver, or drunk/asleep passenger being done for anything as it would send out a very negative message, given that both parties are acting in what can only be seen as a sensible and reasonable manner. Common sense must prevail in certain cases. I'd feel much happier driving about late at night most weekends if I knew the drunks were asleep in the passenger seat, as opposed to being behind the wheel!

unkel

sogood wrote: »

I couldnt see either the "L" driver, or drunk/asleep passenger being done for anything as it would send out a very negative message, given that both parties are acting in what can only be seen as a sensible and reasonable manner.

So a learner driver and his drunk/asleep passenger are both sensible and reasonable? I give up.

unkel

unkel wrote: »

So a learner driver and his drunk/asleep passenger are both sensible and reasonable? I give up.

more sensible than the alternative.

sogood

unkel wrote: »

So a learner driver and his drunk/asleep passenger are both sensible and reasonable? I give up.

Given a choice, its much the lesser of two evils. Which would you prefer to meet at an intersection at 2.30 on a Saturday morning? I know its not perfect but the choice seems pretty clear to me. When we finally live on a perfect planet occupied by perfect humans we wont have to debate this point, but until then, let a little common sense prevail.

Seth Brundle

Arcee wrote: »

From the road safety authority... doesn't say they must be sober or insured on that vehicle but they definitely have to have a full license.

As a learner permit holder you are required to be accompanied by and be under the supervision of a person who has a full licence for a minimum of two years. If you are on your first, third or later provisional licence or learner permit for a category B vehicle, you must have a fully licensed driver with you.
From 30/06/08 holders of a 2nd learder permit or 2nd provisional licence for category 'B' must also be accompanied by a fully licensed driver.
Regardless of whether you are a provisional licence holder or a learner permit holder your accompanying driver must hold a current and valid full licence for the same category of vehicle for categories C1, C, D1, D, EC1, EC, ED1 and ED and be with you at all times when you are driving



http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/your-licence-and-vehicle/before-you-are-a-fully-licenced-driver/provisional-licence-holders.html

The RSA website is not the law!

Arcee

kbannon wrote: »

The RSA website is not the law!

Are you suggesting what's written on the site is not actually the law as per the road traffic act? I'm happily open to correction if you can point me towards an alternative source of information. I think the authority responsible for publishing the rules of the road and issuing driving licenses is fairly credible though.....

bonkey

sogood wrote: »

Given a choice, its much the lesser of two evils.

I guess that depends on what choice you're seeing.

Which would you prefer to meet at an intersection at 2.30 on a Saturday morning?

The way I see it, the choice is between:

- Meeting a drunk/asleep driver, accompanied by a learner
- Meeting a learner accompanied by a drunk/asleep qualified driver
- Meeting a learner accompanied by a third person who the learner and drunk/asleep qualified driver arranged to have join them for the trip
- Meeting no-one, or perhaps a taxi, as the learner didn't drive due to not having a qualified driver, and the drunk/asleep, qualified driver didn't drive due to being drunk/asleep.
- Meeting no-one a learner accompanied by a sober, awake qualified driver, as they chose not to go for a few alcoholic drinks, but did something else.

I'd say that from those five scenarios, two are indeed evils, and we'd agree on which is the lesser.

I know its not perfect but the choice seems pretty clear to me.

For me its pretty clear as well. You choose one of the other options...the ones which aren't evils.

until then, let a little common sense prevail.

Common sense is highly subjective.

For me, common sense is rejecting both of the two evils, and choosing one of the non-evil alternatives..

bonkey

Arcee wrote: »

Are you suggesting what's written on the site is not actually the law as per the road traffic act? I'm happily open to correction if you can point me towards an alternative source of information. I think the authority responsible for publishing the rules of the road and issuing driving licenses is fairly credible though.....

I suspect that - at the very least - it would be the difference between the letter of the law, and the intent of the law as enforced by the courts.

What, exactly, does it mean "under the supervision of", for example? Can you supervise when asleep? Can you supervise when drunk?

What does it mean by "accompanied by"? Is it merely "in the presence of", or does it have a more significant meaning in the sense used?

If it came to a court-case, I'd be highly surprised to find a judge swayed by the argument of "by my interpretation of the wording, judge, I was accompanied and supervised, so I've done nothing wrong".

Topper Harley

bonkey wrote: »

If it came to a court-case, I'd be highly surprised to find a judge swayed by the argument of "by my interpretation of the wording, judge, I was accompanied and supervised, so I've done nothing wrong".

I agree with you there but when you say:

bonkey wrote: »

Can you supervise when drunk?

What exactly is meant by drunk. A couple of drinks? Or quite a few drinks? There's a limit when it comes to driving so I assume that the limit is the same for an accompanying driver. But if an accompanying driver is slightly over the limit, what difference does this make. Their reaction times are impared, but that doesn't make a difference when you're not driving. I don't think this is quite the 'evil' some people are making it out to be.

To me, there seems to be an assumption that just because someone's on a learner permit, they are a bad driver. Many drivers on permits may be well able to pass the test but are just on the waiting list to do it. Or maybe they failed because they were nervous on the day. And let's not forget that having a full licence does not make you a good driver, there are many bad drivers on full licences.

Which would you prefer to meet at an intersection at 2.30 on a Saturday morning?

It would bother me to meet a drunk driver but not a 'learner' with an accompanying full licence holder who is 'drunk'. Unless the 'learner' was very inexperieced and the full licence holder was very drunk. Common sense should come into play here for the driver but like you said bonkey,

Common sense is highly subjective.

so that's why there are laws. I just think there's room for some leaniency on this issue.

bonkey

Topper Harley wrote: »

But if an accompanying driver is slightly over the limit, what difference does this make.

One could argue the same with drivers over the limit. There are, undoubtedly, people who would be better drivers even when slightly over the limit then others would be when stone-cold sober.

The law, however, can't be expected to meaningfully assess such things on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, its probably impossible to do so. Rather, it sets hard limits, and every individual is expected to follow them.

To me, there seems to be an assumption that just because someone's on a learner permit, they are a bad driver.

I certainly don't assume any such thing. I also don't assume that no-one is capable of driving safely at 150km/h, or that there are people who (as mentioned above) would pass any required driving ability test while over the limit.

The law isn't about individuals. Its set as a standard for the collective, and we are collectively expected to hold to those laws, even if individually our skill-set might suggest that we should be given greater flexibility.

In terms of the learner and qualified driver out for a few pints...its entirely possible that the qualified driver would be a better driver over the limit then the learner sober. Its also possible that the reverse is true - that the learner - even with a few drinks - is already a better driver than the qualified driver.

How can the law deal with this? Should each case involve recreating as closely as possible the conditions (tiredness, drunkenness, etc.) of all parties, and then assess their driving capabilities? It can't - its simply not practical. Its probably not even possible.

I just think there's room for some leaniency on this issue.

I can't say whether or not a judge would agree.

I could see why a judge would be lenient. I can also see why a judge would be adamant that leniency wasn't deserved. I don't know if I could say which is the right call.

sogood

bonkey wrote: »

I guess that depends on what choice you're seeing.



The way I see it, the choice is between:

- Meeting a drunk/asleep driver, accompanied by a learner
- Meeting a learner accompanied by a drunk/asleep qualified driver
- Meeting a learner accompanied by a third person who the learner and drunk/asleep qualified driver arranged to have join them for the trip
- Meeting no-one, or perhaps a taxi, as the learner didn't drive due to not having a qualified driver, and the drunk/asleep, qualified driver didn't drive due to being drunk/asleep.
- Meeting no-one a learner accompanied by a sober, awake qualified driver, as they chose not to go for a few alcoholic drinks, but did something else.

I'd say that from those five scenarios, two are indeed evils, and we'd agree on which is the lesser.


For me its pretty clear as well. You choose one of the other options...the ones which aren't evils.


Common sense is highly subjective.

For me, common sense is rejecting both of the two evils, and choosing one of the non-evil alternatives..

The OP didnt present any other alternatives, simply asked a question, to which I voiced an opinion, based within and on, the given parameters.
Of course I personally know what sort of driving environment I would wish to inhabit, in a perfect world, just like much of my preferences, based upon some utopian existence. But I live in the real world, just like you. For the record, I would prefer that all drivers had to reach some level of competency before being allowed to drive, that restrictions to engine size and performance be restricted on new/ young drivers, with an accompanying curfew on certain hours,that zero tolerance with a 0% drink drive limit be enforced, that people speeding be treated more harshly, that many more real traffic police be employed to cut down on generally ignorant and inconsiderate driving etc. etc. Thats what I'd like and then some. But I have to put up with the best thats available. If I cant eliminate the various "evils" that I have to contend with, then give me the lesser one every time. We see and hear a lot about the late night drink enduced crashes, but we will never hear about all those people who got home safely, without causing death or injury to anyone else, because they were asleep in the back of the car while a learner (who might have been driving for years and actuallt SAT a test or two, unlike the snoring drunk who bought his full licence in an amnesty) did the driving. But I take your point.