Question about insurance for provisional driver

seanabc

Can anyone tell me if a provisional driver is covered on their insurance if they don't have an accompanying driver with them in the car?

Random

You should be covered yes.

Check with your own insurance company referencing your own policy number to clarify your cover.

Jax Teller

of course your covered

R.O.R

If anything happens though, I'm sure the insurance company are well within their rights to sue the unacompanied driver for all costs.

I wish they'd follow the UK system and suspend coverage if you are not driving in accordance with your licence. That would cut down the number of L drivers.

seanabc

The wording on the policy is:
"Drivers or classes of drivers whose driving is covered.

The Insured
Any person in the Motor Trade who is driving with the insured's consent . . .

Provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive the Vehicle or has held and is not disqualified for or prohibited by law from holding or obtaining such a licence."

I'll check with the insurance company too but just wondering if anyone here can tell me if I'm covered or not. It looks to me like you could interpret the above a couple of ways.

icjzfmq7ewon1t

R.O.R wrote: »

If anything happens though, I'm sure the insurance company are well within their rights to sue the unacompanied driver for all costs.

I wish they'd follow the UK system and suspend coverage if you are not driving in accordance with your licence. That would cut down the number of L drivers.

1. Were you ever an L driver?
2. If your so fond of the laws in the UK why not go live there

R.O.R

Leonardo Uptight Bacon wrote: »

1. Were you ever an L driver?
2. If your so fond of the laws in the UK why not go live there

1. Yes, I was an L driver for 36 days. Never once did I drive unacompanied.
2. If the wife would move back to the UK with me and I could get a decent job, I'd be off like a shot.

Do you have a point?

oldyouth

seanabc wrote: »

Provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive the Vehicle or has held and is not disqualified for or prohibited by law from holding or obtaining such a licence.".

That is the standard wording. However, an insurer can interpret that you don't hold a licence if you drive unacompanied as the only licence in your posession states that you must have a qualified driver with you.

It is a technical point and I don't see it being enforced. They would have the right, though, to refuse an own damage claim to your vehicle.

Either way, it is an offence and a conviction would likely follow if the Gardai are involved regardless of whether a claim is made or not

Anan1

Leonardo Uptight Bacon wrote: »

1. Were you ever an L driver?
2. If your so fond of the laws in the UK why not go live there

Reasonable criticism of R.O.R.'s argument is welcome, mindless abuse is not.

bladespin

Most likely scenario is that you're covered, but if the insurance company wanted to challenge on the technicality (court etc) they would be in their rights, is successful they would still be responsible for third party claims, they couls seek recovery (court again etc).

Anan1

oldyouth wrote: »

That is the standard wording. However, an insurer can interpret that you don't hold a licence if you drive unacompanied as the only licence in your posession states that you must have a qualified driver with you.

It is a technical point and I don't see it being enforced. They would have the right, though, to refuse an own damage claim to your vehicle.

Either way, it is an offence and a conviction would likely follow if the Gardai are involved regardless of whether a claim is made or not

I'd be confident the ins co would pay out, but I could easily see them coming after the policy holder to recover funds afterwards.

irishthump

oldyouth wrote: »

That is the standard wording. However, an insurer can interpret that you don't hold a licence if you drive unacompanied as the only licence in your posession states that you must have a qualified driver with you.

It is a technical point and I don't see it being enforced. They would have the right, though, to refuse an own damage claim to your vehicle.

Either way, it is an offence and a conviction would likely follow if the Gardai are involved regardless of whether a claim is made or not

I think that insurance companies said they would honour any policies they had when they begin enforcing the L-driver laws, so they would pay out.
But, it's still a grey area, they would be well entitled to refuse to pay out or chase the driver for the costs.

pablosd

well it happened to my friend, he crashed into another car on the narrow street, they rang insurace company(quinn direct) in this case, quinn paid for the damage done to the other car but they wouldn't pay him(he had a comprehensive cover btw) because he was unaccompanied by full licence driver at the time, so he was left to fix the damage himself...

icjzfmq7ewon1t

Anan1 wrote: »

Reasonable criticism of R.O.R.'s argument is welcome, mindless abuse is not.

Sorry wasn't meaning to abuse anyone, no offence meant R.O.R.

My own lad has just started driving he needs a car for a job hes very lucky to have in the present climate. He cant do his test for six months and its impossible to have a licenced driver with him all the time.

Theres a good few young lads in the same position around here with no public transport to speak of so I would just say give them a break.

Its not young fellas in their first cars that overtake me on the road every day away over the speedlimit.

Henry Ford III

Leonardo Uptight Bacon wrote: »

Sorry wasn't meaning to abuse anyone, no offence meant R.O.R.

My own lad has just started driving he needs a car for a job hes very lucky to have in the present climate. He cant do his test for six months and its impossible to have a licenced driver with him all the time.

Theres a good few young lads in the same position around here with no public transport to speak of so I would just say give them a break.

Its not young fellas in their first cars that overtake me on the road every day away over the speedlimit.

He simply shouldn't be driving then.

HugoIrl

Random wrote: »

You should be covered yes.

Check with your own insurance company referencing your own policy number to clarify your cover.

I agree with this, best to check with you insurance company most did say they would honour claims as that is a civil law issue where as driving without a full licence driver is a criminal law matter.

Jo King

Leonardo Uptight Bacon wrote: »

Sorry wasn't meaning to abuse anyone, no offence meant R.O.R.

My own lad has just started driving he needs a car for a job hes very lucky to have in the present climate. He cant do his test for six months and its impossible to have a licenced driver with him all the time.

Theres a good few young lads in the same position around here with no public transport to speak of so I would just say give them a break.

Its not young fellas in their first cars that overtake me on the road every day away over the speedlimit.

Can't he move to a flat till he gets a licence? Why is the first response to every situation to insist on the necessity for driving? I do not get why people choose to live in remote areas and then want the law that applies to everybody else set aside for them.

dudara

His license would be technically invalid while driving on his own - therefore his insurance would not cover him.

However, what does happen is that the insurance company would pay any third party costs, but no costs for your son. They are then also entitled to recoup those costs from your son. And he may have trouble getting insurance again in the future. In reality though, I don't think much would happen.

I have a lot of sympathy for people who are trying to learn, but we really need to break this irrepsonsible attitude to driving while learning in this country.

icjzfmq7ewon1t

With all due respect the snow white attitude of some on here makes me smile.I wonder if any of them ever broke any law ever It must be great to see things in such a black and white manner with no grey areas. Thankfully the Gardai take a more common sense approach and realise that people have to go about their daily business.

I'm all for giving the youth a break everyone has to start somewhere

-Chris-

Leonardo Uptight Bacon wrote: »

Theres a good few young lads in the same position around here with no public transport to speak of so I would just say give them a break.

So you're OK with unaccompanied driving...

Leonardo Uptight Bacon wrote: »

Its not young fellas in their first cars that overtake me on the road every day away over the speedlimit.

...but you're not OK with speeding?



I'm not taking either side, but do you not feel that outlook kinda suits your circumstances...

icjzfmq7ewon1t

-Chris- wrote: »

So you're OK with unaccompanied driving...



...but you're not OK with speeding?



I'm not taking either side, but do you not feel that outlook kinda suits your circumstances...

The point I was trying to make is that a full licence doesn't prove a person is a better or safer driver. I'm not in favour of breaking any laws all I'm saying is in reality thankfully common sense kicks in.

-Chris-

Leonardo Uptight Bacon wrote: »

The point I was trying to make is that a full licence doesn't prove a person is a better or safer driver.

Does a degree from a prestigeous university prove a person is smarter than a person without one?
Does a certificate from the RIAM prove a person is a better musician than a person without one?
Does the fact that someone practiced hard enough and had enough luck on their side to pass the driving test prove a person is better at driving than someone else?


I don't think certification proves anything conclusively, but it's surely a good indicator that someone achieved a certain level of competency.

And until you've been tested and have proven that you've achieved that level of basic competency, all you can do is hope that your natural talent and aptitude will convince people that you know what you're doing.
Unfortunately driving is the only of the above three examples where hubris will put the lives of others at risk.

Leonardo Uptight Bacon wrote: »

I'm not in favour of breaking any laws...

Yes you are:

Leonardo Uptight Bacon wrote: »

Theres a good few young lads in the same position around here...
...so I would just say give them a break.

icjzfmq7ewon1t

I dont think its a question of arrogance with most L drivers driving unaccompanied. Might be some arrogance on your part assuming so.

I dont actually agree with breaking the law but in real life sometimes its not easy for people to stay within every single one 100% of the time.

-Chris-

Leonardo Uptight Bacon wrote: »

I dont think its a question of arrogance with most L drivers driving unaccompanied. Might be some arrogance on your part assuming so.

Driving unaccompanied should be nothing to do with arrogance or circumstance, more to do with the law. If you're on a provisional (or whatever it's called now), you shouldn't be driving alone.

I'm not whiter-than-white either - I exceed the speed limit regularly, although I feel I'm still in control and safe at the speed I do. I feel I'm taking an educated risk in exceeding the speed limit.

In terms of arrogance, yes I'm arrogant with that attitude, and if I'm caught for speeding I'll apologise for it, pay my fine and take my points like a grown-up.

If an inexperienced driver breaks the "unaccompanied rule" because their circumstances say that it's their only option - that's arrogance and a pretty strong sense of self-entitlement. Grow up and do your time learning to drive like the rest of us.
If an experienced driver breaks the "unaccompanied rule" because their (self assessed) experience and skill says that they don't need to be accompanied all the time, the question would present itself - why haven't they passed the test yet?

icjzfmq7ewon1t

So its ok for you to break the law but not an L driver do you not feel that attitude suits your circumstances.

If my son is prosecuted for driving unaccompanied he will take his fine, penalty points and any other punishment like a man too.

oldyouth

I have broken driving laws previously (not saying which:o) but there comes a point to stop all that nonsense. Call it maturity, common sense or middle age, I don't care. Please God every car user gets home safely tonight

-Chris-

Leonardo Uptight Bacon wrote: »

So its ok for you to break the law but not an L driver do you not feel that attitude suits your circumstances.

If my son is prosecuted for driving unaccompanied he will take his fine, penalty points and any other punishment like a man too.

It's not OK for me to break the law. If I'm caught, I'll be punished.

icjzfmq7ewon1t

-Chris- wrote: »

It's not OK for me to break the law. If I'm caught, I'll be punished.

Which is where we came in, the chances of somebody getting caught speeding is much less than a young lad with a big red L and no accompanying driver even though the person speeding could be a much greater risk to other road users.

P.C.

Leonardo Uptight Bacon wrote: »

So its ok for you to break the law but not an L driver do you not feel that attitude suits your circumstances.

If my son is prosecuted for driving unaccompanied he will take his fine, penalty points and any other punishment like a man too.

How old is you son?

Henry Ford III

The difference between Chris (as he's desribed above) and the OP's son is marked.

Chris drives legally, and like many of us occaisionally goes a bit too quick. A bit bold, but rarely anything more than that hopefully.

OP's son however gives the v sign to the law each and every time he starts a journey unaccomapanied.

That to me is unacceptable. The law is there for a reason.

Anan1

Leonardo Uptight Bacon wrote: »

The point I was trying to make is that a full licence doesn't prove a person is a better or safer driver. I'm not in favour of breaking any laws all I'm saying is in reality thankfully common sense kicks in.

Common sense should tell you that your son should not drive unaccompanied until he has passed his test.

Our man in Havana

OP's son however gives the v sign to the law each and every time he starts a journey unaccompanied.

And it is people like him that the Gardaí should be prosecuting to the fullest extent of the law.

Mycroft H

you know what your son should do??

Walk to work or better get a bike.

I live in a rural area and thats what i did for the last two years during the summer, 10 miles to the local town where i worked.

last year i had a provisional i wasnt aloud drive unacompanied. I have a full licence this year but i couldnt get a job this summer

OP i think you should be responsible and not let him drive, no matter how good you think your son is a driving a car.

seanabc

Thanks for all the replies. The general consensus is that I am covered which puts my mind at ease a little. Personally, the reason why I'm driving on a provisional is because I've recently moved out of town and I'm now 11 miles away from work. The bus is the only form of public transport and, because of the way the timetable is, using it adds between an hour to two hours onto my day. A taxi costs 30 euros, so until I started driving a couple of months ago I was either being robbed paying taxi fares or hanging around an hour waiting for a bus. I'm going to apply for the test soon and hopefully pass it.

jmck87

Meh....live your life by whats right and wrong, not legal and illegal.

I'd probably include driving accompanied in the 'right' category...but thats just me.