Petitition to extend the IBT cert

Breezin

I'm not personally affected (guess how old my licence is ), but this seems a good idea:


https://www.change.org/p/rsa-road-safety-authority-extend-the-ibt-initial-basic-training-cert-for-motorcyclists-2021

Goose81

Breezin wrote: »

I'm not personally affected (guess how old my licence is ), but this seems a good idea:


https://www.change.org/p/rsa-road-safety-authority-extend-the-ibt-initial-basic-training-cert-for-motorcyclists-2021

I always thought it was a massive grey area with this IBT expiration thing.

I'm pretty sure I asked my tester when I did my test and he said they didn't care if it was over 2 years once it had been completed. The guards don't care either.

I know it says 2 years but I don't know who exactly takes notice of it.

I asked the same question here years ago I think when my old lad did his IBT and it was going to expire, not bothered looking for the thread though.

Mjolnir

Goose81 wrote: »

I always thought it was a massive grey area with this IBT expiration thing.

I'm pretty sure I asked my tester when I did my test and he said they didn't care if it was over 2 years once it had been completed. The guards don't care either.

I know it says 2 years but I don't know who exactly takes notice of it.

I asked the same question here years ago I think when my old lad did his IBT and it was going to expire, not bothered looking for the thread though.

It's not a grey area strictly speaking it's a requirement for insurance and having a valid one is a requirement of driving a bike on a learners permit.
Now do most guards care, not really, a lot haven't a clue what it is. Testers never cared, but now everything is linked via the new system. Unfortunately some people have been called by the rsa and told ibt is out, your test is cancelled, or asked on the day and turned away when it was out of date. Not everyone has but some unfortunate c#nts

The old sure the insurance didn't ask for it doesn't wash, because it's a legal requirement you have to have it, mine never asked to see my learners permit but I'm still required to have it and have it in date.
Insurance law has the company covered so they don't care, they'll be able to escape paying out.

It's a pain in the bo//ox having to renew it and it not having been extended but let's be real the government don't care about motorcyclists.

Haha sorry for the derail rant over, signed the petition too.

Goose81

It's 100% not a requirement for insurance or how it would affect cover because I rang my insurer to clarify when I had an IBT cert and it was close to expiring before I did my test Just to correct what you posted, insurance was with Carole Nash at the time.

I actually have it in writing from them, IL see if I can find it.

Mjolnir

Goose81 wrote: »

It's 100% not a requirement for insurance because I rang mine to clarify when I had an IBT. Just to correct that.

Its a requirement for you to be legally allowed to drive, its not a requirement to have a bike covered for fire and theft but is in the case of driving it on a road way

Goose81

Mjolnir wrote: »

Its a requirement for you to be legally allowed to drive, its not a requirement to have a bike covered for fire and theft but is in the case of driving it on a road way

Yes, that's between the driver and the garda, nothing to do with insurance.

Have you actually rang up and clarified this with an insurer like I have or are you taking a guess?

It's the same rubbish the garda used to say when learner drivers drove without a fully licenced driver in the car, that your insurance wasn't valid. Insurance was valid because I actually did the same early 20's, got a letter from insurance company saying not having a fully licenced driver in the car didn't affect insurance. It was a mater between the driver and the garda.

Sonics2k

Goose81 wrote: »

Yes, that's between the driver and the garda, nothing to do with insurance.

Have you actually rang up and clarified this with an insurer like I have or are you taking a guess?

It's the same rubbish the garda used to say when learner drivers drove without a fully licenced driver in the car, that your insurance wasn't valid. Insurance was valid because I actually did the same early 20's, got a letter from insurance company saying not having a fully licenced driver in the car didn't affect insurance. It was a mater between the driver and the garda.

Yes, but if you don't have a valid IBT and attempt to make a claim on your insurance, you can be damn sure they'll use that against you.

seanod99

Goose81 wrote: »

It's 100% not a requirement for insurance or how it would affect cover because I rang my insurer to clarify when I had an IBT cert and it was close to expiring before I did my test Just to correct what you posted, insurance was with Carole Nash at the time.

I actually have it in writing from them, IL see if I can find it.

There's a huge difference between what a fella will tell you over the phone and what will actually happen in the case of a claim, in policy wording it will always say once you are legal and licensed or something similar and that is their get out clause, you aren't allowed on the road without ibt, you can be damn sure the insurer will check everything if a claim comes in, most seemingly couldn't care when you are taking out the insurance that's what Uberrima fides is for, liberty were the only ones who actually looked for an ibt cert off me. Whether it's different if your ibt has lapsed is a different question and would have to be tested in a case I'd imagine.
Back when I was learning on a restricted bike with carole nash, to be fair to the guy on the phone he told me they don't recognise restriction certs, but they would still insure me knowing I only had an a2 licence and it was up to me to ensure that I was licensed to ride the bike. So he was basically saying I would have no cover in a crash.

Del2005

Goose81 wrote: »

Yes, that's between the driver and the garda, nothing to do with insurance.

Have you actually rang up and clarified this with an insurer like I have or are you taking a guess?

It's the same rubbish the garda used to say when learner drivers drove without a fully licenced driver in the car, that your insurance wasn't valid. Insurance was valid because I actually did the same early 20's, got a letter from insurance company saying not having a fully licenced driver in the car didn't affect insurance. It was a mater between the driver and the garda.

In Ireland 3rd parties are always covered by insurance no matter what the status of the driver who caused the RTC, all policies pay into MIBI

What has changed is that insurance companies are now going after drivers who weren't correctly insured by not telling the insurance company all material facts or not complying with the conditions of their licence, no IBT/unaccompanied learner/ penalty points etc, and taking them to court to recover the 3rd party payout. Because this is a civil case there's no assumed innocent it's based on the balance of probabilities.

So what you're saying is true that your insurance is still valid if you don't comply with the conditions of your licence, so you won't get 5 penalty points/jail, but they will come after you for any money paid to 3rd parties and they'll win the case.