Driving unnaccompanied on a first provisional

Cerdito

Hi,

I've just gotten my first provisional licence and I've been driving round with a full driver for a couple of months, so I have a bit of experience on the road. I am a named driver on the insurance of the car I'm driving. My question is: If I take the car out on my own, what is the story with insurance cover in the event of a prang or crash? Will the insurance company pay out? I mean, if I was stopped by the guards, I wouldn't be done for driving uninsured because I am insured, so by the same token, surely I'd be covered?

seamus

Originally posted by Cerdito
Hi,

I've just gotten my first provisional licence and I've been driving round with a full driver for a couple of months, so I have a bit of experience on the road. I am a named driver on the insurance of the car I'm driving. My question is: If I take the car out on my own, what is the story with insurance cover in the event of a prang or crash? Will the insurance company pay out? I mean, if I was stopped by the guards, I wouldn't be done for driving uninsured because I am covered, so by the same token, surely I'd be covered?

Check your insurance policy. Unless it specifically says you won't be covered through illegal use of the vehicle, then you're covered.

Chances are you're covered. But don't drive on your own.

Mayshine

Yeas the insurance company will still cover you even though you are breaking the law but Just becuase you are covered by your insurance doesn't mean you won't get hit by a fine for driving unaccompanied on a first prov. Off course the likely hood of you being stop now that the christmas period is over is rare

This country is such ****, I mean if you feel good enough to drive by yourself then you should do a test. In any first world country you might wait 2-3 weeks for a test and you'ld never need to worry about this crap. What a crap country.

Sorry for the rant

dave

Riamfada

I drove unaccompanied , all over this fine Isle for about 17 weeks waitning for my test. However I got cought twice.

1) The Garda knew my unkle so said nothing. ( except a conversation about my unkle)
2) I rear ended another car. Now being 20 and driving without the full license holder beside me i beggeg the other driver not to repport it and pain the 1000 euro out of my own pocket. However he did report it and i got a severe and i mean SEVERE bolliking by the gards. I drove home alone after... damn the man.

On the other hand I walked through my test. Never seen anythingas easy. 2 minimal mistakes. And when you get stopped my a garda check point as happened to me many a time on a prov. they generally just look at your tax and insurance and wave you on. Its not that big a deal.

My mate never drove his car before his test without a full holder and failed first time.

Cerdito

thanks for the feedback lads....

Just an additional few points:

I have applied for my test with the letter from work etc. It's just that I want to make sure I get as much experience as possible before I take it, which means either dragging my full licence person out on meaningless 2 hour drives to nowhere (when they're available) or taking short trips on my own (to Train station, shops etc.).

When I have my full licence person with me, I tend to ask them questions all the time: "Where do I go here? What gear should I be in? etc. without making my own judgements or reading the traffic myself - I'm basically getting them to take my decisions for me.

The insurance cover issue is important to me because I have to consider worst-case scenarios, rather than saying "arrrah t'will be grand"

Merrion

You need to check with your insurance providor.
Where I work any illegality would definitely void the cover...even if it didn't cause the accident.

Seth Brundle

the insurance company will more than likely pay out in the event of a claim but you may find that they then come after you for full costs (including their barristers, etc.).

Turner

When i was a young provisional driver I got my insurance comp to give it to me in writing that I would be covered if I crashed while unaccompanied.

Its the only way my parents would let me out on my own!!.

I was surprised that they actually gave it to me in writing.

Atomic Pineapple

when i was 17 (3 years ago) i drove around on my first provisional for about a year on my own, often got stopped by guards at checkpoints and stuff but they just checked the tax and insurance and waved me on through, never got anything in writing but the insurance campany said I would be covered driving unaccompanied, but there was alot less fuss about it back then

Rodney Trotter

More than likely you will be covered by Insurance however. In fact, the only driving licence stipulation on Insurance is you must not be currently disqualified. You don't even need to have a licence, at all.

To the boyo who was reported after rear-ending someone, I have no sympathy. The law of the land says you are not allowed to drive solo, and you got caught.

It's just that I want to make sure I get as much experience as possible before I take it, which means either dragging my full licence person out on meaningless 2 hour drives to nowhere (when they're available) or taking short trips on my own (to Train station, shops etc.).

When I have my full licence person with me, I tend to ask them questions all the time: "Where do I go here? What gear should I be in? etc. without making my own judgements or reading the traffic myself - I'm basically getting them to take my decisions for me.

These two sentances, so full of contradictions, show why the likes of you should not be allowed drive solo. If you have to ask these questions when accompanioed then you are not fit to drive solo. You are an accident waiting to happen. Driving is a skill which should NOT be learned the HARD WAY!

Seth Brundle

Originally posted by Rodney Trotter
To the boyo who was reported after rear-ending someone, I have no sympathy. The law of the land says you are not allowed to drive solo, and you got caught.

...because he couldn't drive properly in the first place!

These two sentances, so full of contradictions, show why the likes of you should not be allowed drive solo. If you have to ask these questions when accompanioed then you are not fit to drive solo. You are an accident waiting to happen. Driving is a skill which should NOT be learned the HARD WAY!

With immaturity like that, they should not be allowed out on the road with the fully licenced driver, never mind solo!

sceptre

Originally posted by Rodney Trotter
More than likely you will be covered by Insurance however. In fact, the only driving licence stipulation on Insurance is you must not be currently disqualified. You don't even need to have a licence, at all.

My father's AXA cert (read it the other night) states that the requirement is that the insured must have held a licence in the category at some point and not be currently disqualified. I'm sure mine is the same - I may check that if I casually come across it. Pretty much what young Trotter said with the subtle difference attached.

Victor

Originally posted by Mayshine
Yeas the insurance company will still cover you

Eh, they'll cover the other guy, it's unlikely they'll cover you.

SheroN

unlikely a young fella on a provisional is going to have fully comp though

gurramok

I drove mostly unaccompanied for about 7 months before i passed my test.
In all that time, just 2 garda checkpoints appeared, waved me on.

But i was very concsious not to have an accident and be extra careful whilst doing it.

A significant number of people have driven unaccompanied while on prov, its just an Irish habit

Law says you should not drive on your own while unaccompanied, but where is the enforcement ?

Nuttzz

Originally posted by SheroN
unlikely a young fella on a provisional is going to have fully comp though

I always had fully comp, even in my early 20's i think there was only £200 difference at the time (£3000)

John R

Originally posted by gurramok
I drove mostly unaccompanied for about 7 months before i passed my test.
In all that time, just 2 garda checkpoints appeared, waved me on.

But i was very concsious not to have an accident and be extra careful whilst doing it.

A significant number of people have driven unaccompanied while on prov, its just an Irish habit

Law says you should not drive on your own while unaccompanied, but where is the enforcement ?

It's not an Irish habit, it's an Irish necessity, there have been huge waits for tests for almost a decade and nothing has been done. I drove for the best part of a year unaccompanied without incident, not because I wanted to but because I would have been out of a job otherwise.

MrPudding

Originally posted by John R
It's not an Irish habit, it's an Irish necessity.....

This is bulls**t. I don't care if you have to wait 2 years. If you don't have a full licence you should not be driving on your own. Even the second provisional is crap.

If you don't have a full driving licence get the bus, get a lift or get a qualified driver to accompany you.

When I went for my test 12 years ago in the North I had a 16 week waiting time. I phoned every morning until I got a cancellation. In the meantime I took the bus. And believe me that was a hassle. To get to where I worked I had to get a bus at 0815 which got me to my destination at 0845ish, I started work at 1200 so that was pretty crap. Coming home I had to wait 4 hours for a bus. I had a car but I hadn't passed my test.

I know the waiting time in Ireland are longer but it does not matter. I am fed up avoiding f**king idiot Learner drivers driving on their own without a f**king clue. I know your response will be "but I am a good driver, I don't make these stupid mistakes I should be allowed to drive." That is all very well but we need to identify those who are capable of driving on their own and those who aren't. We should not just let everyone do it because some of you are not dangerous to yourselves and, more importantly, others. If only we had a way of identifying those who can drive safely and those who can't. Maybe we could have some kind of test. It could be a test of driving skills. We could call it a driving test. What? There already is one? Well why the f**k can't that be the deciding factor on whether people are allowed to drive rather than "wah wah wah it really hard for me to get the bus to work wah wah."

When I tell people at home that you could go to sit you driving test, a test of your ability to competently and safely drive your car. Fail that test, ie be deemed not safe or competent to drive on public roads and then you f**king drive home. It is a joke and a disgrace. Further, until recently you just say f**k it, I'll not bother doing a test. Ever.

And for every one of you that says I didn't do my test and I am a good driver. Or I passed my test first time so I was a good driver, what difference does a piece of paper make? I say, I understand what you are saying, I'm sure you are a good driver but there are many who are not. This is the point. It does not matter how good you are. If you are a good driver then great, do you test. The requirement to have a qualified driver beside learners is to protect US from the f**king Muppets that can't drive and are a danger. That is the important thing. It is not designed to inconvenience good drivers that haven’t gotten round to doing their test yet.

There has to be a way to separate the good drivers from the bad. At the moment that is a driving test. I know it has its problems but it is all there is.

Anyway that is my 2 cents.

MrP

Sparks

Originally posted by MrPudding
This is bulls**t. I don't care if you have to wait 2 years. If you don't have a full licence you should not be driving on your own. Even the second provisional is crap.

I drove on my own on my second provisional for a year while waiting for a test. By the time I sat my test, I had four years behind the wheel. Passed the test in Wicklow first time, despite some twat in a Bedford trying to drive over me at a junction.

Far as I'm concerned, until the test is sorted out (so that you can get a test within a week), driving on your second provisional unaccompanied is an Irish necessity forced on us by the government, not an immoral act.

Driving alone on the first provisional, however, is a different deal.

I know the waiting time in Ireland are longer but it does not matter. I am fed up avoiding f**king idiot Learner drivers driving on their own without a f**king clue.

Actually, the worst drivers I've ever met in the ROI have been fully licenced, and many of them were from the north.
In fact, northern irish drivers in the ROI are so well-known for driving irresponsibly and dangerously, that it's become a running joke.
So perhaps you ought to dial back the vitriol a tad?

MrPudding

There must be figures for bad driving. I don't accept that the worst drivers are fully licenced. I would estimate that 8 out of 10 of no fault near misses that I have had have been with driver with L plates and most of them unaccompanied.

I know there would be "I drove on my own and I passed first time!" posts. In fact I specifically mentioned this in my post. My point was and still is there has to be a way to separate good drivers like yourself from s**t drivers.

And I am sorry to say again but this "it is a neccessity forced on us by the government" is bulls**t. It is not designed to inconvienience you it is designed to protect people from muppets. Quit the put upon poor irish driver. Getting a test date in less than a week is a dream. I can't speak for many countries but I know in the UK you have to wait longer than that. Do provisional driver drive alone anyway? No. I'm sure some do but the majority don't, if you are caught you get banned from driving.

Can you not see that this is a dangerous policy? Other countries do not allow it yet people still get and keep jobs and find other ways to get to work.

As for the Northie drivers. There is a running joke in the North about Southern driver up there. Besides, regardless about how northern drivers or fully licenced drivers drive the fact still remains. We have to separate good drivers from bad before they are allowed to drive by themselves. It will not get rid of all the bad drivers or the drivers who change their habits once they have passed the test. But if it keeps one dangerous bastard off the road then it is worth it.

MrP

Villain

Ok 2 little story's.

Female friend applys for Provisional Driving licence when shes turns 17 for the sole purpose of having a form of ID. Her provisional licence ends and she gets her second Provisonal Licence, at this point she has never drove a car. She then decide to get lessons from her da and get added as a name driver, she has no experience on the road but she can drive unacompanied.

Male friend gets his first provisional licence and gets 10 Driving lessons from a driving school. He gets added as a name driver but can't drive without a full licence driver with him!

Conclusion: System is ****ed up.

seamus

Originally posted by irish1
Conclusion: System is ****ed up.

/me nods

My opinion on it would be a complete reform.

Theory test.
Then three licences. You must hold each one for a minimum of 6 months, and a maximum of 2 years.

Licence 1; Driver must be accompanied at all times. Anytime after the 6 months, they can apply for a test. A basic test involving a small practical test, i.e. 4 or 5 runs around an industrial estate, just to show that the driver can position himself in the road, drive confidently, indicate competently, basically a less strict and shorter version of our current test. Maybe 20 minutes of simple stuff.
Once you pass that, you move onto
Licence 2; Driver can drive unaccompanied between 6am and 11pm.
Again, after a minimum of 6 months, the driver must take a proper test. At least an hour of driving, half of which driving outside of speed limit areas.
Pass that...
Licence 3; Driver can drive unaccompanied at all times except for on motorways when they can be accompanied. After Minimum 6 months, test of 30mins motorway or 1 hour dual carraigway driving, going at least 50mph for most of that time (limits and traffic permitting).

A driver caught driving illegally (e.g. unaccompanied when they're not supposed to be) gets banned from driving for the square of the number of times they've been caught (you'd know I'm a nerd ). So for example, the first offence - one year ban. Second offence, 4 year ban. Third offence, 9 year ban, etc.
Fail a test, and you drop back to the start of that licence. So if you fail test 2, you go back to the start of licence 2, and have to wait a minimum of another 6 months for your test.
If a driver fails to take a test within the 2 years, or fails 3 consecutive tests, they drop a licence. So fail test 2, 3 times, and you're back at licence 1.

I'm sure most of us would fail that at some point In a perfect world....

Imposter

Originally posted by seamus
Theory test.
Then three licences. You must hold each one for a minimum of 6 months, and a maximum of 2 years.

Here's the system I went through to get a licence:
Get lessons through a licenced driving school (including theory lessons), do Theory Test and then do driving test. Driving test would be a little more lenient than it is currently in Ireland but involved Parellel parking, reverse parking, 3 point turn, general driving and motorway (which was at discretion of tester). Then you get asked some basic maintainence questions. Once that's passed you then have a full licence but have a 0.1pm alcohol limit (allows for the odd slice of tiramisu or something similar:)) for 2 full years.

To me that's a sensible system. If you're 17 you can get a U17 plate (like an L plate in Ireland) but only after 10 hours with instructor. With this you must do something like 1000km before applying for a test.

Sparks

Originally posted by MrPudding
There must be figures for bad driving. I don't accept that the worst drivers are fully licenced. I would estimate that 8 out of 10 of no fault near misses that I have had have been with driver with L plates and most of them unaccompanied.

My experience has been the polar opposite. I've learnt to watch executive-class cars, white vans and garda cars as the potential hazards they are.

And I am sorry to say again but this "it is a neccessity forced on us by the government" is bulls**t. It is not designed to inconvienience you it is designed to protect people from muppets. Quit the put upon poor irish driver. Getting a test date in less than a week is a dream.

It's not a dream, it's the way things are in the UK and the US. (An ex is english and several family and friends are in both nations. I'm just taking their experiences as being the standard we ought to aim for).

Can you not see that this is a dangerous policy? Other countries do not allow it yet people still get and keep jobs and find other ways to get to work.

Other nations don't allow you to pass your test at 1400 and start work as a driving instructor at 1401 either, but we do. Other nations hire more testers and many have "just-qualified" licence categories and "advanced driver" licences and a full supporting infrastructure.

We don't.
Ergo, an irish solution to an irish problem. It's a long way from perfect, to be sure, but short of hiring competent administrators for government, what are you going to do?

MrPudding

I agree that the system is not perfect. I agree that it needs an overhaul and more testers and all that other stuff. But the point still remains you have to separate the good from the bad and until you have been judged you should not be allowed to drive on your own. This is my point. It is an issue of safety and for me that is the over riding issue.

By the way the current wait in Northern Ireland is a minimum of 6 weeks (you may be lucky and get a cancellation though) admittedly much better than here but still way off your dream 1 week.

I stand by my assertation that regardless of how the government has screwed up the system through lack of investment or plain old incompetence it should not give people the right to drive alone until they have been tested. Can you not understand this? Can you not see how stupid it is to let practically anyone out on the roads without a clue? Did you read irish1's post?

Stand back for one minute, forget your personal situation, forget about all the tossers in the big cars that keep cutting you up (I know I have seen it too), forget the dodgey Northies and the fully licenced idiots, clear you mind of all you know and then ask yourself 2 questions:

1) Does it make sense to allow someone who has little or no driving experience out on Ireland crappy and congested roads unaccompanied?

2) If someone fails a driving test shold they be allowed to drive home on their own and continue to drive as long as they want?

In the end how long you have to wait is irrelevent. I know it is a pain. At the end of the day it comes down to the the 2 questions above. Now Sparks I have seen you post and I reckon your're probably a pretty smart guy. But I have to say anyone who honestly answers yes to the 2 questions above is an idiot. Remember forget your own personal circumstances and how good a driver you were. Take a step back and think about it objectively.

MrP

Villain

I think proof of lessons is a good way to go, i.e. you can't get insured on a provisional Licence until you have undergone some driving lessons

John R

How long you have to wait is not irrelevant to the people who have to wait, there is a world of difference between 6 weeks and a whole year.
Your assertation that possesing a licence in this country is any indicator of driving standard does not hold true. There are thousands of people with full licences who never even sat a test, some people who had never sat in the driving seat of a car got licences because they were available without tests. Most people who do take a test are never required to drive on national routes or dual-carriageways, most never exceed 30mph but once they have that piece of paper are competent; I think not.

Villain

Yea my mother got one of those licences, she can drive a bus or lorry and she never even sat a test!!

Victor

Possibly if the fees for licences were restructured so as to discourage "passive" (non-driving) licence holders and to finance more testers, instead of merely funding testers out of test fees.

This would discourage some people as the licence fee would be higher and there is a risk it would be increased to form a money generating mechanism.

Question. Should road tax be on the driver or vehicle?

jongore

Guy in Wexford got a 6 month ban last month for driving unaccompainied on his first provisional. That's his insurance f**ked when he gets his licence back.

Just a warning that the guards are begining to take this seriously.

DaithiSurfer

i drove around on my first provisional on my own.
made a few **** ups that coulds have caused accidents.
made some since i got my full liscence too but nowhere near as many.
i was stopped several times and the cops never even noticed.
By the time i had my L-plates for a month i was cursing '****ing learners' at othe L-platers.
Its always differnt from the point of view you are at at the time.
If i had a kid with L-Plates now i wouldnt let them out unaccomanied at all.
It was ok for me (just because i thought i was great at the time) but not ok for anyone else.

M cousin was banned for 6 months for driving unaccompanied on her 1st provisional 2 months ago.
Major crackdown on so i wouldnt do it now unless you want to face not being allowed to drive at all.

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by Victor
Possibly if the fees for licences were restructured so as to discourage "passive" (non-driving) licence holders and to finance more testers, instead of merely funding testers out of test fees.

This would discourage some people as the licence fee would be higher and there is a risk it would be increased to form a money generating mechanism.

Question. Should road tax be on the driver or vehicle?

Road tax should be on fuel - a usage tax - we live on a island - get the NI executive involved so no incentive for cross boarder smuggling.

Low standard of the tests - due to the large number of deaths on the road and all the rumours of people being passed without having completed a full test , the testing system should be revamped. At present the numbers who die each year on our roads are similar to the number of testers - cause/effect ? Insurance companies are offering discounts on the basis of doing a one day course. If the insurance companies don't trust the test (and they have statistics) ... plug in the values including the % of accidents caused by driver error and you will get the figure. On average every X months each driving tester passes someone who later die due to driver error...

Long waiting times - this is not a decade old - anyone remember the amnesty ? You could increase the cost of the test (yes it would be indirect taxation) but overall it should be cheaper - the test only costs the same as two lessons... Or get a private company to do it like the NCT. Anything more that two or three weeks is a health and safety issue.

As soon as waiting times are a a realistic level phase out the driving on second provisional. Enforce the no driving on a provisional rule. Use large fines - self financing. ~1/10 of the population have a provisional so it should also ease traffic congestion.

Seth Brundle

the test should be compulsory every two or four years (however, given they can't sort out the current mess, this will never happen)!

Imposter

Originally posted by kbannon
the test should be compulsory every two or four years (however, given they can't sort out the current mess, this will never happen)!

I'd say every 10 years might be more realistic and possible. Aren't licences for 10 years? Perhaps a quick test before getting your renewed licence would make sense.

Silent Bob

Originally posted by Victor
Question. Should road tax be on the driver or vehicle?

Not on the driver, road tax is meant to be used for upkeep of roads. It should be based on the amount of damage inflicted on the roads by the vehicle.

Taxing fuel gets you a usage based measure and would also take into account weight of the vehicle (heavier cars use more fuel).

Taxing based on engine capacity (like at the moment) is just silly.

Originally posted by seamus
Licence 2; Driver can drive unaccompanied between 6am and 11pm.

What's the difference between driving before 11pm and after 11pm?

seamus

Originally posted by Silent Bob
What's the difference between driving before 11pm and after 11pm?

Statistically, more serious/fatal accidents occur in the wee small hours of Saturday and Sunday mornings.

Probably something to do with the roads being empty - feel it easier/safer to speed - ad it also has a lot to do with drink-driving.

MrPudding

Originally posted by John R
How long you have to wait is not irrelevant to the people who have to wait, there is a world of difference between 6 weeks and a whole year.
Your assertation that possesing a licence in this country is any indicator of driving standard does not hold true. There are thousands of people with full licences who never even sat a test, some people who had never sat in the driving seat of a car got licences because they were available without tests. Most people who do take a test are never required to drive on national routes or dual-carriageways, most never exceed 30mph but once they have that piece of paper are competent; I think not.

I'm sorry but the waiting time is irrelevant. It is illegal to drive unaccompanied on your first licence. That is fact. How long you have to wait is quite irrelevant. Having to wait for a long period of time is not and should not be considered mitigating circumstances. I haven’t actually said that holding a licence is a definite indication of good driving skill. It indicates that you can hold it together long enough to pass the test. My point is the really crap people will fail. This is the point.

Don’t even start me on the licence give away. That is a joke and a poor one at that.

There seems to be a serious inability in some people here to see the absolute stupidity in allowing inexperienced drivers on the road by themselves. You have to stop thinking about yourself and how good a driver you think you were and think about some complete f**king idiot who has no clue at all and is at the wheel of a car which could kill and maim so many people so easily. Once again for the cheap seat. IT IS NOT TO INCONVIENIENCE GOOD DRIVERS WHO ARE JUST WAITING FOR A TEST, IT IS TO PROTECT THE GENERAL PUBLIC FROM DANGEROUS MUPPETS. Please get this into you head. And once again in case you didn’t read it earlier, I do not believe that the driving test in it’s current form will catch all the bad drivers nor will it stop people from changing their driving habits after they pass. What it will do is catch the worst.

I refer you to the 2 questions I posed in an earlier post. Can you really honestly say you would answer yes to those questions?

Personally I also think there should be regular re-testing. It would be a real pain (for me and for most people) but I think worth it.

At the end of the day it does not matter how good a driver you are. You could have just graduated top the class in the “Super Driver World University” and still be killed by some f**king muppet who thinks that ‘cos he has managed to fill out a provisional driving licence application form twice he is God’s gift to driving. Seriously catch yourself on.

MrP