court for no full licence driver

Craigels

Hi im in court for having no full licence driver with me tomorrow
I had my summons with a certain solicitor in limerick for over a month and he didn't bother to contact me regarding my case so I have decided to use a different one who I have arranged to meet me in the morning he said I need to write a letter to my other solicitor asking to have my summons handed back to me is this correct?

Zambia

Mate if your solicitor told you to do that why second guess him write the letter.

washman3

Write a report on the first solictor on ratemysolictor.ie when your case is finished. disgraceful carry-on from a so-called professional.

Delancey

washman3 wrote: »

Write a report on the first solictor on ratemysolictor.ie when your case is finished. disgraceful carry-on from a so-called professional.

That website has thankfully long since bitten the dust - only an imbecile would rely on anything it said.

washman3

The other option was to report him/her to the law society. And the OP may get a reply in 2-3 years if he's lucky.!!
Shame that the website has been closed down,allows these guys to act with impunity again with the gravy train restored. Suppose it was always going to happen once a single solictor took action against it. After all turkeys simply do not vote for Christmas.

Kosseegan

washman3 wrote: »

The other option was to report him/her to the law society. And the OP may get a reply in 2-3 years if he's lucky.!!
Shame that the website has been closed down,allows these guys to act with impunity again with the gravy train restored. Suppose it was always going to happen once a single solictor took action against it. After all turkeys simply do not vote for Christmas.

A solicitor wouldn't usually come back to a client over a minor road traffic matter. There would be plenty of time on the day in court. I don't know what the o/ps problem is really. It is a matter of 1 minute before court.

shaneybaby

washman3 wrote: »

The other option was to report him/her to the law society. And the OP may get a reply in 2-3 years if he's lucky.!!
Shame that the website has been closed down,allows these guys to act with impunity again with the gravy train restored. Suppose it was always going to happen once a single solictor took action against it. After all turkeys simply do not vote for Christmas.

?? Where the hell did you get this length of time from. I've had experience with it and they came back to me the same day!!

MagicSean

You retained a solicitor for a summons for driving unaccompanied? What exactly do you expect him to contact you about?

jblack

washman3 wrote: »

The other option was to report him/her to the law society. And the OP may get a reply in 2-3 years if he's lucky.!!

Incorrect, baseless and utter nonsense.

Any more unhelpful advice?

keano007

Kosseegan wrote: »

A solicitor wouldn't usually come back to a client over a minor road traffic matter. There would be plenty of time on the day in court. I don't know what the o/ps problem is really. It is a matter of 1 minute before court.

True, what's to discuss o/p? You were either accompanied or not.

How many times did you try and contact the solicitors office during the month?

chopser

Maybe the initial solicitor had sent the papers off to Junior and Senior Counsel for advice on Proofs?

If that is the case you may have a hefty legal bill to pay before you get your summons back!

Craigels

It got struck out this morning thank god

ResearchWill

Craigels wrote: »

It got struck out this morning thank god

Can I ask which solicitor looked after the matter, the first one or the new one.

BostonB

Craigels wrote: »

It got struck out this morning thank god

Why?

MadsL

Craigels wrote: »

It got struck out this morning thank god

And we wonder why there is no enforcement in this country...

How hard was this to prove?

kirving

MadsL wrote: »

And we wonder why there is no enforcement in this country...

How hard was this to prove?

Stupid bringing that to to court in the first place. It's hardly that big of a deal since there's little a qualified driver can do in an emergency. You should be given the chance to pass the test at short notice(within a week) if caught, to prove your ability. Fail = fine. Up to 3 month waiting list is a joke to do an hour long test.

Gileadi

No, maybe you should pass the test before taking to the roads potentially endangering yourself and others before being deemed competent.

Zillah

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Stupid bringing that to to court in the first place. It's hardly that big of a deal since there's little a qualified driver can do in an emergency. You should be given the chance to pass the test at short notice(within a week) if caught, to prove your ability. Fail = fine. Up to 3 month waiting list is a joke to do an hour long test.

I'm all for learner drivers getting some alone time on the road leading up to the test (yes yes breaking the rules etc), but the above is pretty ludicrous.

MadsL

You should be given the chance to pass the test at short notice(within a week) if caught, to prove your ability.

Wtf? There is a mechanism to prove your ability. It is called a driving test.

Why people persist in this mindset is beyond me.

kirving

MadsL wrote: »

Wtf? There is a mechanism to prove your ability. It is called a driving test.

Why people persist in this mindset is beyond me.

I know, but waiting lists of up to three months still exist for an hour long test. That is unacceptable. Dragging someone to court over the issue is a waste of time when an immediate test would prove that they have the ability.

For the record I believe that learner drivers should only be on the road with an instructor. Lets face it, an untrained, tired, drunk, inattentive full licence holder can legally act as supervision. But that's perfectly safe, since it's all above board.

A passenger can do nothing in really in an emergency situation. They can offer advice under normal circumstances, thats about it without dual controls.

A court appearance is ridiculous, and even more ridiculous if it's struck out.

Zambia

You can be drunk as the accompanying driver? That is a easy change in legislation.

Mr Simpson

I'm 99% sure that the supervising driver must be fit to drive. Also, so what about 3 month wait times, You must have your Learner Permit for 6 months before you do your test, thats plenty of time to book it. I did my test about a week after the 6 months was up.

MadsL

I know, but waiting lists of up to three months still exist for an hour long test. That is unacceptable. Dragging someone to court over the issue is a waste of time when an immediate test would prove that they have the ability.

You are still missing the point. You are trying to make the point that if the wait time exceed X, then you should be entitled to break the law. Somewhat akin to if the line is too long to withdraw cash you should be entitled to rob a bank. Actually worse than that is the assumption that you get to decide if you are safe on the road - potentially costing other people their lives.

As to wait times - wait times are three months nowhere in the country at the moment. 2.5 Months is the average.

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Learner-Drivers/The-Driving-Test/Test-Waiting-Times/

kirving

MadsL wrote: »

You are trying to make the point that if the wait time exceed X, then you should be entitled to break the law.

I'm not at all, what I'm saying is that court is stupid way to deal with it. The fact is that people are going to drive alone, and give some stupid excuse for it. Some will get off with a warning, while others go to court for the offence, which is a pretty serious thing to happen. All I'm saying is that to avoid court, give anyone caught a chance to pass the test straight away.

Obviously everyone should wait until they pass their test, but long waiting times just componds the problem of people saying that they "need" to drive.

As far as I can see, yes the accompanying driver can be drunk, or asleep or whatever, which makes a mockery of the system. There was a proposed change, but nothing since. Open to correction obviously.

How does a fully licenced driver sitting beside you cause such a profound change from "potentially costing other people their lives" to being deemed safe?

Mongarra

Kevin Irving yes the accompanying driver can be drunk, or asleep or whatever, which makes a mockery of the system. There was a proposed change, but nothing since. Open to correction obviously.QUOTE wrote:

I was advised by his driving school instructor that when accompanying my nephew, a learner, I must be capable of passing a breath test.

Delancey

The accompanying / supervising driver must be capable of taking over driving.
If too drunk to do this I'm unsure if an offence is committed , if it is a specific offence I'm not sure if the penalty falls to the student or the accompanying driver.

blindsider

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I'm not at all, what I'm saying is that court is stupid way to deal with it. The fact is that people are going to drive alone, and give some stupid excuse for it. Some will get off with a warning, while others go to court for the offence, which is a pretty serious thing to happen. All I'm saying is that to avoid court, give anyone caught a chance to pass the test straight away.

Obviously everyone should wait until they pass their test, but long waiting times just componds the problem of people saying that they "need" to drive.

As far as I can see, yes the accompanying driver can be drunk, or asleep or whatever, which makes a mockery of the system. There was a proposed change, but nothing since. Open to correction obviously.

How does a fully licenced driver sitting beside you cause such a profound change from "potentially costing other people their lives" to being deemed safe?

So the quickest way to get your test/full-licensse is to break the law?

Interesting logic....

Personally, I don't understand why a little planning is too much to ask. 2.5 months is not OTT. People wait much longer for medical appointments and a host of other things. Can you still get your employer etc to write a letter seeking a faster test date, on the grounds of a genuine business need?

Some people still have an extraordinarily lax approach to the law; a law which is there to protect us all from incompetent (unable to drive to the required standard) drivers.

It's not acceptable in most other EU countries and it should not be acceptable here.

MadsL

Kevin Irving wrote: »

How does a fully licenced driver sitting beside you cause such a profound change from "potentially costing other people their lives" to being deemed safe?

Are you at all familiar with the concept of supervision? The experienced driver can warn of upcoming hazards, caution against excessive speed or unwise overtaking.

In your world view learners are given a shot at a 'get out of jail free' card by passing a test on the spot, can you not see that this would be penalising someone for failing a test, not for breaking a law. You seem to believe that incompetent learners will be 'caught' before causing accidents and potentially loss of life.

Add ego into that and every learner would be out there alone "cause I can drive great!!"

However, why Driver Ed is not in schools is beyond me.

Mr Simpson

Delancey wrote: »

The accompanying / supervising driver must be capable of taking over driving.
If too drunk to do this I'm unsure if an offence is committed , if it is a specific offence I'm not sure if the penalty falls to the student or the accompanying driver.

AFAIK, the offence is driving without a fully licenced driver.

Zambia

If the accompanying driver was drunk could he not be charged with Ex PCA?

He is meant to be in control of the vehicle.

washman3

Craigels wrote: »

It got struck out this morning thank god

All is well that ends well....:)
Solictor got his cash i presume,everyone happy.
Thats what road safety is all about in this country.
You should never have got a court summons in the first place.
an absolute joke. this law was brought in to appease the Driving instructors brigade who lobbied the Government to introduce it as their gravy train began to dry up post "Celtic Tiger"

MadsL

washman3 wrote: »

You should never have got a court summons in the first place.
an absolute joke. this law was brought in to appease the Driving instructors brigade who lobbied the Government to introduce it as their gravy train began to dry up post "Celtic Tiger"

Name me another European country that allows unaccompanied provisional drivers. In fact, name me another European country that hasn't had that law for 25+ years.

PCPhoto

washman3 wrote: »

All is well that ends well....:)
Solictor got his cash i presume,everyone happy.
Thats what road safety is all about in this country.
You should never have got a court summons in the first place.
an absolute joke. this law was brought in to appease the Driving instructors brigade who lobbied the Government to introduce it as their gravy train began to dry up post "Celtic Tiger"

do you have any proof of this claim or are you just trying to troll ???

Do you think its not a safety issue that an inexperienced driver should not be permitted to drive alone until they pass a competency test ?

Personally I think it (Driving) should be taught in schools - with the parents contributing a part of the cost, it should also include a course on first aid and basic car maintenance as modules during the course....make it optional as a class (some people have no intention of ever driving and should not be forced into it and also some families may not be able to afford it) ..... this would also bring some uniformity to driving instruction.

slimjimmc

washman3 wrote: »

All is well that ends well....:)
Solictor got his cash i presume,everyone happy.
Thats what road safety is all about in this country.
You should never have got a court summons in the first place.
an absolute joke. this law was brought in to appease the Driving instructors brigade who lobbied the Government to introduce it as their gravy train began to dry up post "Celtic Tiger"

:rolleyes:
This law (no unaccompanied driving by learners) has been there for many decades long before the "Celtic Tiger" period. All that was done was close up a loophole that enabled 2nd time provisional holders to drive unaccompanied and greater enforcement of existing law.

Zambia

I cant believe anyone would defend the old system of driving on a second provisional without a test.

The idea you can drive yourself to a driving test scare the crap out of the Tester forcing him to demand to be let out miles from the test centre. Then be legally allowed drive on your own till the next test.

In fact its so fupping stupid every Minister of Transport for the last 25 Years till it was changed should be made write a letter of Apology to every road trauma victim in that time frame.

However I do agree the time frame for tests back then was a joke they can apologise for that too.