Driving on Provisional

trotter_inc

Just wanted to know what the penalty was for driving on a first Provisional with no other fully licenced person in the car with me?

Also, what is the penalty for a first provisional driver driving on the motorway?

Thanks.

Kali

...and people wonder why insurance costs are so high... it's ILLEGAL. doesn't matter what the penalty is... personally I'd take the licence back off you.

Dampsquid

I think it's a 60 or 80 euro fine, and possibly (soon) 2 penalty points. (for both offences)

Having to wait a year to do the driving test should be ILLEGAL.

seamus

Originally posted by trotter_inc
Just wanted to know what the penalty was for driving on a first Provisional with no other fully licenced person in the car with me?

Also, what is the penalty for a first provisional driver driving on the motorway?

Thanks.

Don't do it, and there'll be no penalty.

Nah, it was £50 when I was a prov driver, so about €80 I think. Waiting a year for a test is ridiculous, so you're probably better off applying for the test as soon as you have an inkling that you might be getting a car, even if it's 6 months before you even get a licence.

Remember that you have to carry your licence around with you, so you can't be stopped on a m-way, and then go into the station within 10 days, playing down the m-way thing.

Sleipnir

Penalties do include

1.) Endangering your own life
2.) Endangering the lives of others
3.) Increasing the cost of insurance to yourself
4.) Increasing the cost of insurance to others.

And possibly

Killing a family just before Christmas and getting your face in the papers.

Enjoy!

trotter_inc

Neither of you have ever seen me drive so how the hell can you say how good a driver I am?

Just because I have a provisional doesnt mean I havent been driving before.

There are far worse drivers than me out there!

seamus

Originally posted by trotter_inc
Neither of you have ever seen me drive so how the hell can you say how good a driver I am?

Just because I have a provisional doesnt mean I havent been driving before.

There are far worse drivers than me out there!

Just because you say you're good, doesn't mean you are

Saying "don't drive alone" isn't a commentary on how good you are, it's the law. You're unqualified. That's the bottom line.

eth0_

Originally posted by trotter_inc
Neither of you have ever seen me drive so how the hell can you say how good a driver I am?

Aren't you in the least bit scared of having/causing an accident, knowing full well that your insurance company won't pay out a penny because you're driving illegally?

seamus

Originally posted by eth0_
Aren't you in the least bit scared of having/causing an accident, knowing full well that your insurance company won't pay out a penny because you're driving illegally?

They will pay out. They're obliged to.

Imposter

How many people telling the original poster not to break the law keep to the speed limits and never break the law themselves?

eth0_

Originally posted by seamus
They will pay out. They're obliged to.

They won't pay out for any injuries he incurs himself, or damage to his car because he's defrauding them by driving illegally.
Also, i'm pretty sure if he injures someone else they won't pay out for the same reason and the other party would have to sue for damages.

eth0_

Originally posted by Imposter
How many people telling the original poster not to break the law keep to the speed limits and never break the law themselves?

That has nothing to do with anything. Stop trying to make this thread descend into the usual boards.ie style of sniping and going off topic.

seamus

Sorry, I meant to double-check what I said, and then edit my post. Sure a new one won't hurt...Found this..

the insurer by whom it is issued binds himself by it to insure the insured against all sums without limit which the insured or his personal representative all become liable to pay to any person (exclusive of the excepted persons) whether by way of damages or costs on account of injury to person or property caused by the negligent use, during the period (in this Act referred to as the period of cover) specified in that behalf in the policy, of a mechanically propelled vehicle to which the policy relates, by the insured or by any of such other persons (if any) as are mentioned or otherwise indicated in that behalf in the policy;

I'm not a law type person at all, but that seems to me that any illegal driving is covered, regardless. The only way to invalidate your policy is if you supply false information. After all, if you're speeding, or drink-driving, and you crash, the insurance co. is obliged to pay our, even though you ware driving illegally. Ditto for prov. licences imo. I also found that the above passage (From the Road Traffic Act, 1961) has been modified by the Road Traffic Act, 2002, so that the insurer is only liable for a maximum of €200,000 where the crash has been caused by negligence on the part of the insured. I don't know if this has been enacted yet though.

Any law students like to shed some informed light on this?

Sleipnir

Originally posted by trotter_inc
Neither of you have ever seen me drive so how the hell can you say how good a driver I am?

Just because I have a provisional doesnt mean I havent been driving before.

There are far worse drivers than me out there!

Well if you do have an accident while driving with no full-license holder in the car with you, your insurance company won't cover you. Which means that if it was your fault the injured party is free to bring a civil case against you. If that person is awarded 15,000 for personal injuries you'll have to come up with that yourself.

They most are certainly not obliged to pay out as Seamus states. You'll be breaking the law by driving on your own, therefore you have not fulfilled the terms of your policy.
If you are on the motorway and have an accident the insurance company will say that you are not covered to drive on the motorway as you shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Imposter

Originally posted by eth0_
That has nothing to do with anything. Stop trying to make this thread descend into the usual boards.ie style of sniping and going off topic.

It has a lot to do with everything. The original user asked as to the penalties for doing something that they know is illegal. Everyone answering here to tell them that it is illegal and that they shouldn't do it are the ones who began going off-topic.

The original poster, I would imagine, was trying to weigh up the consequences of getting caught doing something illegal against the benifits to him of doing it, similar to anyone who speeds.

bobbyjoe

That has nothing to do with anything. Stop trying to make this thread descend into the usual boards.ie style of sniping and going off topic.

Well in fairness you did come accross as a bit harsh and Self-righteous, considering the system for getting a licence is so fcuked up here, the waiting time I mean.

eth0_

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
Well in fairness you did come accross as a bit harsh and Self-righteous, considering the system for getting a licence is so fcuked up here, the waiting time I mean.

Just because there's a waiting list to do your test doesn't give you the right to drive illegally. Do you think a guard would come across 'a bit harsh' to yer man? I'd hope so. The standard of driving in Ireland is pretty abysmal, and i'm sure a lot of it is due to learner and provisional drivers giving the one finger salute to the law like this guy.

Illegality is illegality. It's black and white and it's inexcusable.

Spunog UIE

hey man just get your 2nd provisonal :S that jus not right but hey its LEGAL

what a ****ed up country, waiting a year now for my test. la la la

Big al

show me a provisional driver in dublin who hasnt been on the m50 though. a year for a test is a joke

napalm@night

give ur insurance company a call and ask them are you insuraded if driving alone i know some1 who did jst that and they said they would cover...

Sangre

Originally posted by seamus

Any law students like to shed some informed light on this?

It completly depends on what falls under neglient use, which I'm sure would be stated elsewhere in the Act, probably at the beginning.

Although, yes, afaik, the insurer is obliged to cover you even if you are doing something illegally, i.e. drunk driving, speeding, dangerous driving, nearly 90% of road accidents are caused by someone breaking the law, probably more actually.

They most are certainly not obliged to pay out as Seamus states. You'll be breaking the law by driving on your own, therefore you have not fulfilled the terms of your policy.

I honetly cant accept that, if that was the case they would say it for every possible offence.

Sangre

Wait, now I see Kanaga is wrong, because the law in place protects the innocent and/or injuried party, so that means that even the insurer has to pay out to the other party, thats the risk they take in insuring people.

No, kanaga, you do not have to cover civil charges by yourself, as most people would never be able to cover the costs of an injured party, and thats hardly fair is it?

uberwolf

this was something i was wondering...
can i drive alone on my 2nd provosional? cos I thought they'd closed that loop hole?

As for the M50, just go another way, its not worth it whatever it is

Bosh

Read the bottom of your insurance certificate.

Usually has something along the lines of - you are covered for liablity provided you hold a licence to drive the vehicle.

@rds usually take any excuse they can.:mad:

sceptre

Originally posted by uberwolf
this was something i was wondering...
can i drive alone on my 2nd provosional?

Yes. Not on your third though (or in the case of my girlfriend's mother, her fourth)

BrianD3

Well if you do have an accident while driving with no full-license holder in the car with you, your insurance company won't cover you. Which means that if it was your fault the injured party is free to bring a civil case against you. If that person is awarded 15,000 for personal injuries you'll have to come up with that yourself.

Prove it. Seamus has provided proof that you *are* covered, now it's your turn to prove otherwise. If you can't prove it then stop posting your opinions as facts. That's how myths and rumours start.

BrianD3

seamus

Originally posted by Bosh
Read the bottom of your insurance certificate.

Usually has something along the lines of - you are covered for liablity provided you hold a licence to drive the vehicle.

@rds usually take any excuse they can.:mad:

Nope. Read your licence. It says "Categories of vehicles for which licence is valid". Provided you are driving a vehicle as stated on the licence, and complying with the terms of your restrictions (the ones stated on the licence - Must wear corrective lenses, must be accompanied, etc), then you are licenced. There is nothing on any licence that says "You are not licenced to drive on motorways". Driving on motorways is illegal, but you are still licenced. Exactly the same as speeding and drink-driving are illegal, but while doing so, your licence is still valid.

For the record, insurance companied have tried the same argument when saying that pillon passengers are not covered on a provisional licence. My insurance policy in my hand here states "The policy does not cover..use while carrying any passenger other than one pillion passenger unless a side car is attached to the Motor Cycle". Since they have not mentioned anything to do with whether it's illegal or not, I am covered by the insurance company to carry one pillion passenger on my bike, even though it's illegal.

Just to clarify - My policy says I'm covered to drive my bike, "Provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive such vehicle or, having held such a licence, is not disqualified from holding a licence."
It also says, as above, that I am covered to carry at most one pillion passenger.
So, as long as I'm driving the vehicle with the registration as marked on my insurance policy, and have a licence to drive it, and am complying with the restrictions on that licence (ie wearing corrective lenses), then I am covered to both carry a pillion passenger, and to drive on a motorway, and to speed, drink-drive, etc etc.

"I hereby certify that an approved policy of insurance has been issued by me to the person named above, that the particulars stated above are correct, and that, within such particulars and subject to the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1961 the policy of insurance covers all liabilities required by saidAct to be the subject of an apporved policy of insurance." Signed for Hibernian, yada yada yada

I thought it was a iffy issue, but now that I've looked into it a bit, it's cut-and-dried.

Can we put this to rest now?

Victor

The insurance company is liable to the third party, there is nothing to stop them coming after a fraudulent driver to get them to reimburse the insurance company.

commited

Originally posted by Big al
show me a provisional driver in dublin who hasnt been on the m50 though. a year for a test is a joke

most of my mates - and myself..
Im a fully licensed driver now - after a nice 10month wait for a test :rolleyes:
apparently if you keep on pestering the testers for a date, they will bring it forward - thats what my tester told me

Sleipnir

Originally posted by BrianD3
Prove it. Seamus has provided proof that you *are* covered, now it's your turn to prove otherwise. If you can't prove it then stop posting your opinions as facts. That's how myths and rumours start.

BrianD3

Well BrianD3, perhaps this email from an Insurance Information Officer of the Insurance Federation Of Ireland would be enough for you?
It would appear that your own opinion on the matter is, in fact, false.
Or would you like to contact them yourself at www.iif.ie or via the telephone number below to confirm?



<my email sent this morning>

Good morning,

I have a query regarding the driving of a vehicle by a person who holds only a provisional license on the motorway.
I understand that this would be illegal but would like to clarify whether or not that person would be covered by their insurance in the case of an accident?
If so could you tell me why?
If not, could you tell me which part of the policy would exclude coverage under those circumstances?

This is purely in the interests of research but would greatly appreciate a reply.

Best Regards,


<Reply from the Insurance Federation of Ireland>

Thank you for your email dated today.

The insured's accidental damage claim would not be covered in this instance.

Regards

PAUL <surname deleted>
Insurance Information Officer
Irish Insurance Federation
Insurance House
39 Molesworth Street
Dublin 2
Reception: +00353 1 6761820

T:<deleted>
F:<deleted>
E: <deleted>

For the latest insurance news visit www.iif.ie
Report suspect claims to Insurance Confidential LoCall 1890 333 333

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely
for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have
recieved this email in error please notify <deleted>@iif.ie

Doctor J

I believe that's fairly conclusive.

Andrew Duffy

You've actually shot yourself in the foot there. The officer has said that the insurance would revert to third-party cover in the event of the driver driving illegally. This is the normal procedure (try claiming for your own damages if you are convicted of dangerous driving). Also, how many provisionally licenced drivers have comprehensive cover to start with?

seamus

He didn't give any good reason. Just said it wasn't. That's no proof for me. He didn't even attempt to answer your last two questions.
In fact, it almost affirms my belief that they just say these things to stop provisional drivers driving on the motorway (the right thing to do, the wrong way to go about it).



[Edit: Aha, Andrew Duffy's spotted it there.
He says the accidental damage claim would not be upheld, ie any damage to the insured's car would not be paid for.
He doesn't mention third party cover (probably for the reason I've stated above - If he says "Yes, you would still be covered 3rd party", he could get himself in very hot water, even though it's the truth)

BrianD3

If not, could you tell me which part of the policy would exclude coverage under those circumstances?

I notice this question was conveniently ignored in the reply.

The insured's accidental damage claim would not be covered in this instance

No mention of third parties.

Also, no mention of the Road Traffic Act or any other piece of legislation to back up what he says. No mention of/reference to any statement which would be found on a person's insurance policy to back up what he says.

In other words, no proof. Overall, a vague and evasive reply to your email.

BrianD3

Sleipnir

You're dead right BrianD3.
You know more than an Insurance Information officer employed by the Insurance Federation of Ireland.

What do you want exactly, will I mail him back and say there's a guy on boards.ie who's never wrong and would he please quote the statutes?

I'll tell you what Brian, instead of quoting what others have said, where those people have gone and done their best to research the question, why don't you provide some evidence of your own?

BrianD3

Touchy aren't you?

You know more than an Insurance Information officer employed by the Insurance Federation of Ireland.

Read my post again, twat. I *never* stated that I knew what the true story was. I merely asked you for some proof to back up your statements. You failed to do this.

why don't you provide some evidence of your own?

I don't need to. Seamus and others have provided enough evidence for me.

BrianD3

Sleipnir

Touchy?
I'm 6 foot 5, weigh 16 stone and if you ever called me a twat to my face you'd be picking your own up off the floor. Anonimity can make you feel like a man, but it can't make you into one.
Now, I'm getting tired of trying to argue with someone who cannot produce their own arguments so I'm just not going to read anymore of your twaddle.

Bye thread.

BrianD3

I'm 6 foot 5, weigh 16 stone and if you ever called me a twat to my face you'd be picking your own up off the floor..

And you'd be picking some guy's cum out of your ass during your 6 month stay in Mountjoy.

BrianD3

DeVore

Moderator, month ban for BrianD3, two week ban for Kananga.

I'm asking the mod to do this so he'll know when to let you both back in.
Also if I go to the admin panel, I'd probably just ban you completely.

Unacceptible incivility.

DeV.

hussey

Off post from the last few threads

But personally I think this driving on (or not driving) on provisional without a liceanced driver is a joke. Why? well ..

My sister applied for a drivers liceance a few years ago. But never learned to drive.
She got her second liceance 3monts ago, and can legeally drive.
She only learned to drive the same time as me.

So she can drive on her own, but not me.

Totally stoopid

BrianD3

Moderator, month ban for BrianD3, two week ban for Kananga.

Grand. All I'll say in my defence is that Kananga started abusing me in the "who are these idiots" thread and nothing was said/done about it. Then when I questioned his opinion here on this thread he started responding with snide comments which I wasn't in any mood to take. Finally I'll say that I reckon I'm a decent contributor to the motors forum, most of my posts are not abusive, on-topic and relevant eg if someone is having mechanical problems with their car I'll do my best to help them.

BrianD3

Sleipnir

Originally posted by DeVore
Moderator, month ban for BrianD3, two week ban for Kananga.

I'm asking the mod to do this so he'll know when to let you both back in.
Also if I go to the admin panel, I'd probably just ban you completely.

Unacceptible incivility.

DeV.

Understandable. I don't offer anything in defence.
I just cannot allow people to get away with name-calling, which is the only reason I responded, that's all.
BrianD3 is on my ignore list now anyway so we won't clash again.

<EDIT> My apologies to all others on the thread.

sceptre

Originally posted by hussey
She got her second liceance 3monts ago, and can legeally drive.
She only learned to drive the same time as me.

So she can drive on her own, but not me.

Totally stoopid

Agreed hussey. It's for these reasons that I'm in favour of dumping provisional licences totally in their current incarnation and replacing them with a permit system (or just changing the permissions on a provisional) where the learner driver can only drive when accompanied by a recognised driving instructor until they pass their test. Pass your test and you can drive on your own. Nice and simple

(though I recognise that this would require a major overhaul of both the learning process (more instructors and a recognised qualification for them) and the testing process (a little quicker (and hey, more stringent too while we're at it)))

Big al

i agree and disagree sceptre, we cant get rid of the current system until we reform the test system first. when people can ring up and get a test the next week then I think we can reform the licence issue. Of course the testers union wont allow reform cause it doesnt suit their members.

Public sector unions are the root of all evil in this country

commited

how about bring in something like the french system where you have to have a certain number of lessons under your belt before you can take a test.
Also - the big thing they have to do is employ more testers

sceptre

Originally posted by Big al
we cant get rid of the current system until we reform the test system first.

Agreed.

And we should be doing that now even without my point above being considered - the wait for tests is reminding me of the late 70s (and we remember what happened there)

dwayneburke

applied for my test,,,,,on 3rd prov ...can i drive legally on my own???

Seth Brundle

No because you should have by now completed a test (on 2nd provisional) and you showed then that you cannot drive to the required standard.

dwayneburke

got 1st provisional in 1994 to use as i.d. and then second prov...was driving as well but very minimal and then there was a big gap until last september when i actually got 3rd for driving test..

I have applied and everything for the test just waiting on the call

I know stupid thing to do as regards using prov for i.d. but where i lived thats all they would take at the time,,,

Cheers