Provisional drivers and insurance

Random · 31-12-2006 3:48pm #1

So, there's a lot of provisional drivers out there without insurance. If one of them is driving on their 1st license without anyone else in the car and they cause an accident, does this mean that the fully licensed person they crashed into may not be able to claim off their insurance? As technically, they're not insured because they don't have a fully licensed driver in the car with them?

Or am I missing something ?

Wishbone Ash · 31-12-2006 4:02pm

ciaranfo wrote:

So, there's a lot of provisional drivers out there without insurance. If one of them is driving on their 1st license without anyone else in the car and they cause an accident, does this mean that the fully licensed person they crashed into may not be able to claim off their insurance? As technically, they're not insured because they don't have a fully licensed driver in the car with them?

Or am I missing something ?

No, they're still covered. 400,000 is too big a market for the insurance companies to ignore.

(Not all provisional drivers are required to have an accompanying full licence holder).

Random · 31-12-2006 4:34pm

On their first license I mentioned Wishbone. But thanks, I guess you make a fair point about the insurance companys wanting to make money from it so it would make sense to pay out, and up the costs to the provisional driver.

Victor · 31-12-2006 9:22pm

I spoke to a guy from an insurance company a few weeks ago. If someone has a n insurance policy, they are obliged to meet any (valid) third party claims.

However, if you have comprehensive insurance and you weren't following the rules or lied on your application, then they won't pay out on that part of the policy.

Random · 31-12-2006 9:26pm

Right .. so (forgive me if I'm repeating what you're saying).

If a provisional driver (on their 1st license) hasn't got a fully licensed driver with them, and they have fully comp insurance ...
- if they crash and it's their fault, the company will pay out to the person who they crash into
- if they crash into a ditch with no one else involved, it's a case of tough luck to them as they were driving illegally?

Victor · 31-12-2006 9:54pm

Essentially yes, but thats the insurances company's call. I'm not sure just how strict they will be.

There is of course the separate matter of a Garda prosecution.

Random · 31-12-2006 9:57pm

Victor wrote:

Essentially yes, but thats the insurances company's call. I'm not sure just how strict they will be.

There is of course the separate matter of a Garda prosecution.

We all know how lapse the Guards are when it comes to provisional drivers driving unaccompanied though ... so that's why my question came in about the insurance.

Wishbone Ash · 31-12-2006 9:58pm

Victor wrote:

There is of course the separate matter of a Garda prosecution.

I'd imagine that if there was no one else involved, the Gardaí wouldn't be too interested in a prosecution (except perhaps if it was as a result of a section 49 offence).

embraer170 · 31-12-2006 11:55pm

An interesting question which I'd love to hear a real answer given I know so many 1st (and let's not even start on the 3rd+) provisional license holders driving around on their own.

Also what is their definition of "fully licensed driver"?
Someone with an Irish license? A European license? A license from any country?

Random · 31-12-2006 11:58pm

embraer170 - someone with a full unrestricted license.

Wishbone Ash · 01-01-2007 12:05am

ciaranfo wrote:

embraer170 - someone with a full unrestricted license.

Presumably it can be a restricted full licence if the provisional driver is also planning to do a restricted test. For example, a provisional driving an automatic can have a full licenced driver who is restricted to automatics only.

The full licence holding accompaning driver is only valid if he/she holds the licence for the relevent category.

embraer170 · 01-01-2007 12:06am

But does it have to be Irish / European? For example in France / Germany there are strict laws on accompanying driver.

Random · 01-01-2007 12:08am

Wishbone Ash wrote:

Presumably it can be a restricted full licence if the provisional driver is also planning to do a restricted test. For example, a provisional driving an automatic can have a full licenced driver who is restricted to automatics only.

The full licence holding accompaning driver is only valid if he/she holds the licence for the relevent category.

True.

I guess it's someone who is legally allowed to do what they are doing?

Wishbone Ash · 01-01-2007 12:12am

embraer170 wrote:

But does it have to be Irish / European?

A full Irish licence is valid in France and Germany and many other countries.

embraer wrote:

For example in France / Germany there are strict laws on accompanying driver.

There are strict laws here too - enforcement is the problem!

Random · 01-01-2007 12:13am

Why use the phrase "strict law". Why not just "law" ?

Wishbone Ash · 01-01-2007 12:16am

ciaranfo wrote:

Why use the phrase "strict law". Why not just "law" ?

I was thinking that as I typed but as I was answering embraer170's query, and he had used it, I decided to use it also.

embraer170 · 01-01-2007 12:24am

I call a strict law a law that is enforced.

In France for example the accompanying driver has to be over 28, have 3 years driving experience and hold a French driving license.

In our case, the "full license holder" could be someone holding a "full license" bought in Azerbaijan... same reason car rental agencies are strict on requiring translated / international drivers licenses from people from a pretty long list of countries.

Or how about 16 year old Americans (15 in some states?) with "full licenses", would they qualify as an accompaning driver?

Random · 01-01-2007 12:27am

@embraer170 - in our case they need to have their full license for at least 2 years, and have no restrictions on it ... as far as I remember.

++ edit ++
At least I think it's two years ... and the full license must be in the same category, in this case B...

Wishbone Ash · 01-01-2007 12:32am

embraer170 wrote:

In our case, the "full license holder" could be someone holding a "full license" bought in Azerbaijan... ......Or how about 16 year old Americans (15 in some states?) with "full licenses", would they qualify as an accompaning driver?

No in both cases.

dermot_sheehan · 01-01-2007 4:56am

The rules are here:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI352Y1999.html

In Particular Regulation 20(6):

6) (a) In this sub-article "qualified person" means a person who holds a driving licence in respect of the vehicle category being driven.

(b) Subject to paragraph (c) of this sub-article, a provisional licence shall, on coming into effect, licence the holder to drive a vehicle of any category for which the licence is granted on any occasion during the period specified in the licence provided that the following conditions are complied with—

(i) a person provisionally licensed to drive vehicles of category A1, A or M shall not carry a passenger in or on such a vehicle,

(ii) a person provisionally licensed to drive a vehicle shall not carry in the vehicle any passenger for reward,

(iii) a person provisionally licensed to drive vehicles of category B, C1, C, D1, D, EB, EC1, EC, ED1, or ED shall not drive such a vehicle unless there are displayed on the vehicle rectangular plates or signs bearing the letter "L" not less than fifteen centimetres high in red on a white ground, in clearly visible vertical positions to the front and rear of the vehicle,

(iv) a person provisionally licensed to drive vehicles of category B, C1, C, D1, D, EB, EC1, EC, ED1 or ED shall not drive such a vehicle unless he or she is accompanied by and is under the supervision of a qualified person,

(v) a person provisionally licensed to drive vehicles of category W shall not carry a passenger in or on such a vehicle unless the vehicle is constructed or adapted to carry a passenger and such passenger is a qualified person,

(vi) notwithstanding article 6 of these Regulations, a person provisionally licensed to drive vehicles of category B, C1, C, D1 or D shall not drive such a vehicle while the vehicle is drawing a trailer.

(c) (i) The condition set out in paragraph (b) (iv) of this sub-article shall not apply while the holder of the licence is driving a vehicle in the course of undergoing a driving test or driving a vehicle of a category in respect of which he or she holds a valid certificate of competency, or, where that certificate contains a statement that in relation to a category of vehicle it is limited to a specified type of vehicle, while he or she is driving a vehicle of that type.

(ii) The condition at paragraph (b) (iv) of this sub-article shall not apply to a vehicle which is constructed or adapted for use by a person suffering from a physical handicap and which is not constructed or adapted to carry a passenger.

(iii) The condition at paragraph (b) (iv) of this sub-article shall not apply to the driving of a vehicle in category B by a person to whom a provisional licence in respect of vehicles in class C under the revoked regulations was granted prior to 12 August, 1985 or to a person who is driving a vehicle in category B during the period of validity of a second provisional licence granted to him or her in respect of such vehicles.

The regulations don't define the term "driving licence" but refer to irish driving licences and driving licences issued by a compentent authority in an EU member state, so it appears any EU licence holder could do.

seamus · 01-01-2007 3:10pm

A full driving licence is a driving licence which is valid as a full licence for residents of this country. So the full licence of any EU country is valid here, as it is for a select few other countries. An American full licence isn't valid here (unless you're a visitor, but that still wouldn't allow you to act as a "qualified driver").

mackerski · 01-01-2007 8:07pm

embraer170 wrote:

But does it have to be Irish / European? For example in France / Germany there are strict laws on accompanying driver.

In Germany there's no such thing as a provisional licence, so the matter of an accompanying driver doesn't really arise. Non-licenced drivers may only drive under supervision of a qualified, registered driving instructor.

Wishbone Ash · 01-01-2007 8:21pm

mackerski wrote:

In Germany there's no such thing as a provisional licence, so the matter of an accompanying driver doesn't really arise

I think he/she meant here, i.e. would a person with an appropriate full German licence be acceptable as an accompanied driver in Ireland.

godtabh · 01-01-2007 9:27pm

ciaranfo wrote:

- if they crash into a ditch with no one else involved, it's a case of tough luck to them as they were driving illegally?

Would this not be dependant on what kind of insurnace you have i.e TPFT

seamus · 02-01-2007 2:08pm

kearnsr wrote:

Would this not be dependant on what kind of insurnace you have i.e TPFT

Yes and No. Legally, when an insurance company undertakes to insure you, they are obliged to cover all third party claims against you, regardless of whether you were driving within the terms of the insurance agreements. However, I don't think this applies if the insurance was initially obtained using false details (i.e. if you insure your ferrari by telling them you have a micra). So for example, if you're driving without a licence (because it has expired), and you run over a pedestrian, the insurance company will have to pay out.
The insurance company may then have a right however, to chase you for as much money as they can extract from you. You'd also be likely to receive a criminal record, and would end up paying massive premiums for years to come.

If you have comprehensive insurance and you wrap your own car around a tree, but like above are driving without a licence, the insurance company may be able to refuse to pay out to you (or your family, if you're dead). If the owner of the tree makes a claim though, they would have to give him money.

godtabh · 03-01-2007 2:40pm

seamus wrote:

Yes and No. Legally, when an insurance company undertakes to insure you, they are obliged to cover all third party claims against you, regardless of whether you were driving within the terms of the insurance agreements. However, I don't think this applies if the insurance was initially obtained using false details (i.e. if you insure your ferrari by telling them you have a micra). So for example, if you're driving without a licence (because it has expired), and you run over a pedestrian, the insurance company will have to pay out.
The insurance company may then have a right however, to chase you for as much money as they can extract from you. You'd also be likely to receive a criminal record, and would end up paying massive premiums for years to come.

If you have comprehensive insurance and you wrap your own car around a tree, but like above are driving without a licence, the insurance company may be able to refuse to pay out to you (or your family, if you're dead). If the owner of the tree makes a claim though, they would have to give him money.

I was speaking more in terms of having a provisional license and not having a fully licensed driver with you.

Does the fact you only have a provisional license but no licensed drive in the car with you invalidate your license? I didn’t think it did

Victor · 03-01-2007 7:27pm

kearnsr wrote:

Does the fact you only have a provisional license but no licensed drive in the car with you invalidate your license? I didn’t think it did

Having a licensed driver with you while driving is a condition of having a provisional license. Breaching a condition means you are charged with not having a licence.

The same scenario applies with L-plates.

godtabh · 04-01-2007 6:15pm

Victor wrote:

Having a licensed driver with you while driving is a condition of having a provisional license. Breaching a condition means you are charged with not having a licence.

The same scenario applies with L-plates.

So how does that tie in with insurance?

Its a condition of insurance that you have a vaild license for the what your driving.

At the end of the day I know your insured if you have an accident but if you made the indivdual liable would that put people off?

seamus · 04-01-2007 6:35pm

kearnsr wrote:

At the end of the day I know your insured if you have an accident but if you made the indivdual liable would that put people off?

If individuals were to be charged with no licence when caught (without exception), that would be the best incentive. As it is, most can expect to never be caught, and of those who are caught, the majority will get off scott free or with a small fine and points.

Random · 04-01-2007 6:41pm

seamus wrote:

If individuals were to be charged with no licence when caught (without exception), that would be the best incentive. As it is, most can expect to never be caught, and of those who are caught, the majority will get off scott free or with a small fine and points.

It's a tough one really. It's unfair to certain people who are on a waiting list for a year when they were ready for their test 10 months previous.

At the same time, it means that any 17 year old who's never seen a car in his life can sit a theory test, apply for a provo and go on a driving rampage.

Wish they'd hurry up and bring the waiting list down to something reasonable like 6-8 weeks!

godtabh · 04-01-2007 6:57pm

ciaranfo wrote:

It's a tough one really. It's unfair to certain people who are on a waiting list for a year when they were ready for their test 10 months previous.

At the same time, it means that any 17 year old who's never seen a car in his life can sit a theory test, apply for a provo and go on a driving rampage.

Wish they'd hurry up and bring the waiting list down to something reasonable like 6-8 weeks!

I think they should teach people how to drive in school or at least that if you wont to drive you have to do 10 hours with an instructor before you can do the theory test.

Lots of solutuions but you need the politcal will power to do it

Random · 04-01-2007 7:00pm

kearnsr - the main problem isn't creating the new system, I'd say it's more to do with the thousands of provisional drivers out there at the moment who'll cause uproar if they're forced to do it. Then if they give them time to adapt, they're be calls of "one rule for them, one rule for us".

Anyone who's been driving on a provisional license for the last 40 years should be kicked off the road.

And should you not pass the theory test before you go out with an instructor?

godtabh · 04-01-2007 7:16pm

ciaranfo wrote:

kearnsr - the main problem isn't creating the new system, I'd say it's more to do with the thousands of provisional drivers out there at the moment who'll cause uproar if they're forced to do it. Then if they give them time to adapt, they're be calls of "one rule for them, one rule for us".

Anyone who's been driving on a provisional license for the last 40 years should be kicked off the road.

And should you not pass the theory test before you go out with an instructor?

You wouldnt be on the road with the instuctor. During transition year we got driving lessons for a couple of weeks in the school yard. I think we got a grant and had to pay a couple of quid towards it.

I agree that you have to get more people through the system. Maybe they should start with people who need to drive say like some who needs a car for work.
Suppose then you have a problem as who needs it or doesnt need it

Random · 04-01-2007 7:22pm

1. take theory test
2. get lessons (that must be cheaper than they are now!)
3. free government funded day out at mondello to get an actual feel for a car and how it handles
4. more lessons
5. another theory test
6. can drive with a qualified driver
7. get your test (within 4 weeks of requesting it!)
8. pass your test and go go go!
9. retests need to be another 4 weeks!

or something ...

godtabh · 04-01-2007 7:41pm

ciaranfo wrote:

7. get your test (within 4 weeks of requesting it!)

.

A friend of mine move to London to do work experince in college for 3 months. First thing he did was apply for his driving test got and now drives around here after bypassing the irish system

SeanW · 04-01-2007 7:53pm

In some parts of the country you have to wait over a year for a test, such as Navan with a 60 week (that's right, one year and two months) for a driving test.

The system is for all intents and purposes, non-functional.

godtabh · 04-01-2007 8:08pm

I waited a year and half for mine

Random · 04-01-2007 8:11pm

kearnsr wrote:

I waited a year and half for mine

I waited 14 months I think. I then failed, and now I'm gonna need to wait another year or so ...

godtabh · 04-01-2007 8:27pm

ciaranfo wrote:

I waited 14 months I think. I then failed, and now I'm gonna need to wait another year or so ...

For my first tst I got a letter from work and was waiting 6 months all together. The second time I just waited like normal and it took a long long long time

embraer170 · 04-01-2007 8:49pm

How accurate are the waiting times listed on the drivingtest website?

Random · 04-01-2007 8:56pm

embraer170 wrote:

How accurate are the waiting times listed on the drivingtest website?

Hopeless. But they do make it obvious you'll be waiting a long time!

Urban Weigl · 04-01-2007 10:22pm

I failed my test even though everything went perfectly! Currently I've been waiting well over a year to do my test again. This is not acceptable.

I'm not saying there aren't provisional license holders out there who simply can't be bothered -- there are -- but in my case it isn't my fault: I've been ready for my test for a long, long time, yet I'm being forced to wait by an inadequate system. My current license does allow me to drive alone, though. Still, it puts me at a disadvantage, because I cannot rent a car in Spain (for example). I know a lot of people are in the same boat as me.

It's farcical at this stage: the government keeps making promises about putting the system in order, yet here we are years later...

Random · 04-01-2007 10:29pm

How did you fail if everything went perfectly? I'd argue I didn't deserve to fail either, but the bottom line is I didn't fufil the test requirements.

Urban Weigl · 04-01-2007 11:13pm

Without boring you with individual details, basically I was overjoyed with how the test went, but the tester ticked two or three to many yellow boxes. I thought I had passed easily. Neither I nor he could recall where I would have made these "mistakes". I've put it down to him not liking me for whatever reason.

I'm not going to complain as there's no point, nor do I feel being done wrong by him personally: after all, it's the entire system that needs to be fixed here, not just one person.

What's also a joke is that many provisional license holders apply for their tests, yet do not bother showing up. Even something as straightforward as only allowing you to renew your license when you've actually attempted the test would be a beginning. And perhaps a new rules of the road book while they're at it? The list is long, but I can't help but think there are some things that could be addressed without all that much effort. Oh, and mandatory driving lessons with a registered driving instructor after you've done your theory test, and before you get your first provisional license. I took driving lessons; it's not right that you can simply pass your theory test and drive away without having had a single practical driving lesson. At the very least, they could have a system where your parents can still teach you, but first you must take 5 hours (that's the very minimum methinks) with a registered driving instructor. It'd be a huge improvement on what we have now. Sorry, I'm rambling.

1. Apply for theory test, waiting list no longer than 1 week.
2. If passed, you must take a minimum of 10 hours of driving lessons with a registered driving instructor. After this, you are issued with your provisional license. You may either take lessons with a fully licensed driver, or a registered driving instructor.
3. When you are ready for your test, waiting list no longer than 2 weeks. If you fail, repeat the test in 1 week. If you fail 3 times, you lose your provisional license and must take a minimum of 10 hours of driving lessons with a registered driving instructor again before you are allowed to repeat the test.

Something like that... Maybe a bit simpler (sounds a bit complicated).

SeanW · 05-01-2007 5:06am

What I think should be is something like what happens in many states in the U.S. such as Connecticut for example:

1: If you are under 18, you must first apply for a learner's permit. It entitles you to drive with supervision, and is strictly enforced.
2: You apply for a Driving License. You are subject to 3 tests.
A) An eysisht exam

A Law Test (self explanitoy, a test of your knowledge of road laws)
C) An on-road test, scheduled at a "mutually conveniant time" i.e. with mininmal delay.
D) If you fail any portion of the test, you must wait 30 days to repeat that part of the test, or 60 days if you've failed that test or another portion before. (After all, you wouldn't want someone taking driving tests every week

).

I don't see what enforcing minimum driving lessons is going to do - you can't pass your test unless you know how to drive properly, the main problems with road safety are with risk taking behaviour.

If people who don't know how to drive right are passing driving tests, then there's a problem with the test.

jhegarty · 05-01-2007 2:31pm

SeanW wrote:

the main problems with road safety are with risk taking behaviour.

That the point I would make... .they can make the test as hard and long as then want ,but if people want to play "chicken" at 5am on a country road then people will still die....

Provisional drivers and insurance

Comments