Driving on Motorway on L plates

prospect

Downtime wrote:

And those who insist on driving with their fog lights on all the time. The hsould be barred from driving

I concur.

alias no.9

Ernie Ball wrote:

Who here reverses around a corner regularly? Frankly, I think it's a dangerous manoeuvre and should be avoided.

Reversing around a corner demonstrates an ability to control a car through a particularly akward manouver while maintaining observation. It is an extreme case. It is assumed that if you can competantly reverse around a corner, less complex manouvers shouldn't be a problem.

Petal

vector wrote:

what state did you leave the front plate in?

Well I figured if I was caught, I'd be fecked anyway.. or I would've just acted dumb!

Alun

Ernie Ball wrote:

What happens if a person driving on a provisional alone gets in an accident?
Do the insurance companies pay out?

I believe they're obliged by law to pay out on third-party claims, but you can whistle for your money if you try and claim for damage to your own vehicle.

Nuttzz

Alun wrote:

I believe they're obliged by law to pay out on third-party claims, but you can whistle for your money if you try and claim for damage to your own vehicle.

my cousin had no problem getting money from her insurance company for her own car after she hit another car. just an urban myth (she was on 3rd PL)

Alun

Nuttzz wrote:

my cousin had no problem getting money from her insurance company for her own car after she hit another car. just an urban myth (she was on 3rd PL)

Was she driving unaccompanied, and was the insurance company made aware of this? I'm pretty sure that if they were, they'd have refused to pay out. See this excerpt from http://www.dir.ie/interest/interest2.htm. If she was driving unaccompanied, and didn't voluntarily offer this information to the insurance company, then she could be held responsible for making a fraudulent claim.

Some ask why insurance companies continue to provide cover at all to provisional licence-holders who have failed to pass the driving test. But Mr. Michael Horan, non-life manager at the Irish Insurance Federation says insurance companies are duty bound to provide third-party cover for the protection of victims. "If someone has a licence to drive -whether its provisional or full -then by law he must also have insurance. Otherwise people who are injured through no fault of their own will have no recourse.

He says, however, learner drivers claiming for damage to their own car under a comprehensive policy may not be paid if they are found to be in breach of provisional licence regulations. The insurance company would ask serious questions if you had an accident on a motorway, or were unaccompanied when you were supposed to be. Some insurers would argue you were driving outside the terms of your policy.

sceptre

Paul (MN) wrote:

how many times have you, or have you heard of anybody being pulled for having an L plate on a motorway!?

I've heard of people getting done for it a small number of times but in every case this was an after thought as they'd been pulled for doing something illegal.

michaelanthony

whippet wrote:

On a personal point, motorway driving is a different skill to driving on ordinary roads. Proper use of lanes, slip roads and concentration at high speeds where every thing happens that little bit quicker is a skill that needs to be learned and I believe that provisional drivers shouldn't go near the motorway. However there is a failing in the 'driving test' whereby there is no allowance for teaching motorway dicipline.
QUOTE]

BS. Driving on a motorway is A LOT easier and safer than driving on normal roads.

The General

esel wrote:

Do a search FFS. This was discussed *extensively* here last year.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: STFU

causal

jackal wrote:

Has anyone here been done for this?

Check this recent post. He got stopped at a Garda checkpoint - then got a summons for:
- driving unaccompanied on a provisional licence
- no L plates

Some facts:
Neither you nor your girlfriend have earned the right to drive on the motorway; nor to drive without the company of a suitable licenced driver; nor to drive without L plates.

Some food for thought:
You can choose to break the law or not to break the law.
You can justify it or not, by your own standards or by other peoples standards.
It's your choice - what type of person do you choose to be?

causal

Ernie Ball

causal wrote:

Check
It's your choice - what type of person do you choose to be?

Whoah . . . . heavy.

Alun

Ernie Ball wrote:

Whoah . . . . heavy.

That's because being put in charge of a ton or more of metal moving at 120km/h surrounded by other road users is a serious business, and not something that everyone should be allowed to do merely because they see it as some kind of "right" rather than a privilege that can both be earned, and revoked if necessary.

I'm guessing that if you were off on your holidays somewhere and you discovered that the pilot hadn't actually got his pilot's licence, but announced that "Sure I've done a fair bit of flying meself on Flight Simulator, and I'm just as good as those dozy old feckers who have", you'd be in something of a rush to get off? Or if your mother went in to have an operation, and the doctor had learnt to perform open heart surgery by reading a book and practicing on the family dog, that you'd be outraged? Well, it's the same with driving and its about bloody time people started taking it seriously.

camarobill

prospect wrote:

There is no doubt about it,

The following should be stopped, always,

• 'L' Drivers on motorways
• Provisional license drivers without fully licensed driver
• Cars with illegal reg plates (as per another thread)
• Cars with dirty number plates
• Dodgy lights
• etc

For two reasons:
1. The law is the law, wether you like it or not
2. I am not sure of the exact statisitcs, but a very high percentage of serious criminals and drunk/high drivers, arrested in the US are first aprehended on minor motoring offences.

ur reading to many books muppeds with full license,s are as bad on the motorway,fast lane junkeys doing 50 :mad:

Guy:Incognito

You should only be allowed one provisional (which doesnt allow unsupervised driving) , that lasts for one or two years. You should be required to take a minimum number of lessons, which should obviously include motorway driving (receipts to be shown as proof on test day) and should have to pass your test in the two years. If you dont pass your test in the two years you dont get another licence. Your only way to gain more experience then is to take lessons and pass a test. It is workable in the current system, but tbh you should have to do a certain ammount of lessons and pass a test before you can buy a car.

Ernie Ball

Alun wrote:

I'm guessing that if you were off on your holidays somewhere and you discovered that the pilot hadn't actually got his pilot's licence, but announced that "Sure I've done a fair bit of flying meself on Flight Simulator, and I'm just as good as those dozy old feckers who have", you'd be in something of a rush to get off? Or if your mother went in to have an operation, and the doctor had learnt to perform open heart surgery by reading a book and practicing on the family dog, that you'd be outraged?

You don't think you're reading just a bit much into the comment 'whoah. . . heavy'? :rolleyes:

Nuttzz

Alun wrote:

Was she driving unaccompanied,

yes

Alun wrote:

and was the insurance company made aware of this?

they never asked (i dont think they ever actally ask)

Alun wrote:

I'm pretty sure that if they were, they'd have refused to pay out.

dont ask, dont tell...

Victor

Paul (MN) wrote:

only an accountant would be like that!

No an accountant would say "How does this compare to last year?"

Victor

Ernie Ball wrote:

Who here reverses around a corner regularly? Frankly, I think it's a dangerous manoeuvre and should be avoided.

It is permitted, but the mid-point should be the minor route (i.e. reverse into the minor route), not hte major route.

Victor

Ernie Ball wrote:

What happens if a person driving on a provisional alone gets in an accident? Do the insurance companies pay out?

Usually yes, but they are within their rights to (a) only pay out to third parties (b) to have you indemnify them for their costs.

vector

Victor wrote:

No an accountant would say "How does this compare to last year?"

LOL true