Provisional licence, accompanied driver must be sober or no?

crazyderk

Hi Guys,

hoping someone can help me, tried looking on the net but came up with no results, I was having a chat with the OH and she claims that if you have a provisional license you must be accompanied by another driver with 2 years experience. not disputing that, what I'm asking is does the accompanied driver need to be sober?

I.E she goes out and drives on her provisional I'm in the car but I've had a few drinks?

ok or not ok?

If anyone has any links on whether this is ok or not I'd be quite grateful!

Thanks
Crazyderk

DaveNoCheese

Top of my head, I'd say sober. I think that rule is there so that if anything happens, the full license holder can drive the car. Could be completely wrong though. Will do an ole google

Tayla

I would presume that the accompanied driver would have to be sober, if not then they wouldn't be fit to be the accompanied driver.


Maybe if you ring up one of the driving schools or citizens information they will be able to clarify the exact rules.

Edit: Just found a thread where the accompanied driver got breathalyzed and a fine. http://www.isdc.ie/discussion/index.php?topic=10310.0;wap2

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

seamus

The requirement is to be both accompanied and supervised by the qualified driver.

So if your accompanying driver is asleep, you're not being supervised.

There's also a fair argument that if the accompanying person is over the limit, they are incapable of effectively supervising the driver. I think that's the basis on which they do it.

Tayla

That thread on boards is actually pretty interesting, it would seem to me that if you were involved in any kind of accident as a learner with an accompanied driver who was over the limit you would be better off saying that you were not the accompanied/supervising driver and were just a normal passenger in the car.

If prosecuted the learner would be done for driving unaccompanied whether they said the other person was their accompanied driver or not. I wonder would they then get points for not have an supervising driver with them and also for carrying passengers?

It's a pity that person in the first thread I linked to didn't update the thread to say whether he actually paid it or not.

nuac

Surprisingly common sense answers many legal queries, Accompanying driver should be sober

Ch1me

Yes,
The accompaning driver is there to supervise the provisional driver, and therefore must remain capable of 'taking the wheel' if necessary.

Grolschevik

Ch1me wrote: »

Yes,
The accompaning driver is there to supervise the provisional driver, and therefore must remain capable of 'taking the wheel' if necessary.

But the interesting point of one of those linked threads was the question of "when does a full licence holder in your company become an accompanying driver?"...

MagicSean

I haven't seen any legislation allowing the accompanying driver to be breathalised so I can't see how a decision can be made that they are too drunk. I haven't yet read the full 2010 and 2011 Acts so it's possible there are provisions included in them.

While common sense might dictate an accompanying driver should be sober it is useless without legislation to back it up.

seamus

Grolschevik wrote: »

But the interesting point of one of those linked threads was the question of "when does a full licence holder in your company become an accompanying driver?"...

When they are in the vehicle to supervise you

If you are carrying a full licence holder who is not "accompanying" you, they should sit in the back to remove any confusion.

Though I find it hard to believe in one of those threads that an accompanying driver was fined for not being sober. I'm not aware of any law which makes it an offence to be acting as an accompanying driver while unfit (though there probably should be), nor is it illegal to allow oneself to be carried in a vehicle when the driver is unsupervised.
To me, it sounds more like the guy was either stirring up bull**** (happens quite a lot), or he was fined on a separate basis.

The accompanying driver cannot get in trouble for being under the influence as the onus would be on the learner driver to ensure that their accompanying driver is;

1. Qualified to do so
2. Fit to do so

bath handle

MagicSean wrote: »

I haven't seen any legislation allowing the accompanying driver to be breathalised so I can't see how a decision can be made that they are too drunk. I haven't yet read the full 2010 and 2011 Acts so it's possible there are provisions included in them.

While common sense might dictate an accompanying driver should be sober it is useless without legislation to back it up.

Section 50 RTA. The accompanying driver is in charge.

teddansonswig

Ch1me wrote: »

Yes,
The accompaning driver is there to supervise the provisional driver, and therefore must remain capable of 'taking the wheel' if necessary.

that suggests the would need to be insured also to take the wheel

id say they could be drunk, and its just shoddy legislation

MagicSean

bath handle wrote: »

Section 50 RTA. The accompanying driver is in charge.

is there case law on this? Section 50 no longer exists. One would think that if it was meant to include accompanying drivers this would be specified in the new legislation.

seamus

bath handle wrote: »

Section 50 RTA. The accompanying driver is in charge.

I can't find anything which specifies that the accompanying driver is in charge. Is this case law? Do you have a link?

fando

In case of a collision/accident, is accompanying (sober)driver in any way responsible? I mean, in the way a professional instructor might be?

Milk & Honey

seamus wrote: »

I can't find anything which specifies that the accompanying driver is in charge. Is this case law? Do you have a link?

The learner is required to be accompanied by and under the supervision of a qualified driver. Supervising means being in charge.

User Friendly

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The learner is required to be accompanied by and under the supervision of a qualified driver. Supervising means being in charge.

your not understanding the questions being asked here.

an example: my mrs has a learner permit and i have a full licence,we go to a party where i drink and she drives us home,we get stopped by the cops,im asked to blow into the bag despite being in the passenger seat,as i in the guards eyes am the full licence holder.
i guess its at this stage he arrests me because i wont be accepting any penalty or blowing into any bag for him,if he really wants to penalise someone,he can penalise the driver for not driving with a fit fully licenced person in the car.

Kosseegan

User Friendly wrote: »

your not understanding the questions being asked here.

You Have got it wrong.

User Friendly wrote: »

an example: my mrs has a learner permit and i have a full licence,we go to a party where i drink and she drives us home,we get stopped by the cops,im asked to blow into the bag despite being in the passenger seat

On what legal basis?

User Friendly wrote: »

as i in the guards eyes am the full licence holder.

It has nothing to do with the guard's eyes. You are the supervisor of the learner driver.

User Friendly wrote: »

i guess its at this stage he arrests me because i wont be accepting any penalty or blowing into any bag for him,

User Friendly wrote: »

if he really wants to penalise someone,he can penalise the driver for not driving with a fit fully licenced person in the car.

THe learner driver, if sober, is not committing an offence. The learner driver is accompanied and supervised, by someone who should know better than to do it whilst over the limit.

Marquis de carabas

There is no power for a guard to test or arrest any passenger unless he suspects they had been driving a vehicle. Legislation is for driving under the influence.

The now gone sec 50 and the new sec 5 are not designed for that and are instead aimed at situations where the vehicle is not moving. The person in charge is the one behind the wheel.

A qualified accompanying driver should be sober and capable but it'd be a hard one to prove in a criminal court unless they were so drunk they could hardly move.

What i would think is a real possibility is that your insurance company may not cover you in a accident if there was any evidence that the accompanying qualified driver was in some way impaired.

seamus

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Supervising means being in charge.

Can you cite a legal definition where the supervising driver is deemed to be "in charge" of the vehicle? Even in a dictionary definition, supervising is "overseeing", not "controlling".

Even if this were the case, then there's a conflict in logic.
An intoxicated person is incapable of supervising. This is the offence - the learner driver while carrying an intoxicated fully licenced driver, is considered to be driving unsupervised. If the intoxicated person is incapable of supervising, then by your definition of "in charge", the intoxicated person is not "in charge" of the vehicle because they are not supervising.

User Friendly

Kosseegan wrote: »

You Have got it wrong.

On what legal basis?


It has nothing to do with the guard's eyes. You are the supervisor of the learner driver.




THe learner driver, if sober, is not committing an offence. The learner driver is accompanied and supervised, by someone who should know better than to do it whilst over the limit.

Best of luck trying to get a conviction in court for something like that.

if i refuse to accept im the supervisor,then i am certainly not taking a punishment for being over the DD limit.

Again,can you imagine a LPermit driver picking up a hitchhiker,who happens to have a full licence.......... same senario,they get stopped etc..... is the hitchhiker going to be forced into accepting the supervisor role?

Kosseegan

User Friendly wrote: »

Best of luck trying to get a conviction in court for something like that.

if i refuse to accept im the supervisor,then i am certainly not taking a punishment for being over the DD limit.

Again,can you imagine a LPermit driver picking up a hitchhiker,who happens to have a full licence.......... same senario,they get stopped etc..... is the hitchhiker going to be forced into accepting the supervisor role?

It is a question of fact as to whether a person is the supervisor or not. That fact of sitting in the front pasenger seat of a car with L plates and evidence that when the driver was asked to identify the supervisor, the driver indicated the person sitting in the passenger seat who is the holder of a full licence would be enough to allow an inference that the front seat passegener was the supervisor.

Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 defines the words “driving” and “driver” as used in the Act in the following way:
“‘Driving’ includes managing and controlling … and ‘driver’ and other cognate words shall be construed accordingly.”



The supervisor would be expected to exercise some control of the driver, giving directions to spped up, slow down, change gear, signal, use handbrake etc. Well within the meaning of managing and controlling.

seamus

Kosseegan wrote: »

The supervisor would be expected to exercise some control of the driver, giving directions to spped up, slow down, change gear, signal, use handbrake etc. Well within the meaning of managing and controlling.

Can you cite legal precedent of this?

Because the defintion in the RTA is very clearly referring to managing and controlling the vehicle, not the driver, IMO.

MagicSean

Kosseegan wrote: »

It is a question of fact as to whether a person is the supervisor or not. That fact of sitting in the front pasenger seat of a car with L plates and evidence that when the driver was asked to identify the supervisor, the driver indicated the person sitting in the passenger seat who is the holder of a full licence would be enough to allow an inference that the front seat passegener was the supervisor.

Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 defines the words “driving” and “driver” as used in the Act in the following way:
“‘Driving’ includes managing and controlling … and ‘driver’ and other cognate words shall be construed accordingly.”



The supervisor would be expected to exercise some control of the driver, giving directions to spped up, slow down, change gear, signal, use handbrake etc. Well within the meaning of managing and controlling.

I disagree. If the legislature had meant for this to be the case it would have been clarified in the 2010 Act, which it wasn't. There has been specific reference made to the accompanying driver for the purpose of demanding a driving licence in previous acts so it would not be unreasonable to expect the same reference in later acts if that is how it was meant.

I've been told that the 2010 and 2011 acts provided some clarification on this matter but I have yet to find it.