ruling lets Provisonal drivers drive solo

Our man in Havana

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1646498&issue_id=14304

PROVISIONAL drivers can drive unaccompanied and without L-plates following a landmark court ruling.

They cannot be penalised under current legislation, a judge said yesterday in a decision which could have far-reaching consequences for tens of thousands of learner drivers.

Legal experts said gardai would now have to charge provisional drivers with not having a valid licence under the Road Traffic Act instead of not having L-plates or driving unaccompanied. They say the requirement to drive with plates is just a guideline for conditions attached to driving licences.

From now on, offenders will be charged with not having an effective driving licence - as they are not complying with these conditions.

The implications arise from Judge Michael Pattwell's decision at Kanturk District Court yesterday. Provisional driver Tony Carroll, from Kanturk, pleaded guilty and was given the Probation Act for having a darkened windscreen, no silencer and the wrong type of registration plates on his Toyota Corrola van. But charges for driving without L plates and not being accompanied were struck out because under the 1998 road traffic regulations, these offences attach no penalty.

Mr Carroll's case was only one of two cases before the court yesterday and of dozens in the past three months which have been struck out across the country.

Newmarket solicitor Charles O'Connor said judges either take the offences into account when they are sentencing or strike them out.

"This is not a penal regulation. It is an ordinary regulation and is actually a guideline really in reality for the conditions attaching to a driving licence.

"So if you don't comply with the conditions you don't have a driving licence or an effective driving licence," Mr O'Connor said after the sitting.

Although these offences attach no penalty, gardai are still issuing summonses.

Sources within the legal profession have said that the more serious offence of driving without a licence would be more appropriate in these cases.

The ruling will not mean that so-called 'provisional' motorists will be driving without the possibility of punishment. Gardai will, instead, charge them with different offences.

Meanwhile, uninsured drivers are being made to pay for the injuries they cause to their accident victims.

An all-out campaign is under way to claw back some of the €50m paid out each year in compensation to victims following crashes involving uninsured drivers.

Behind the zero-tolerance approach is the Motor Insurance Bureau of Ireland which warned there would be no hiding place for those who don't pay towards the cost of compensation.

"We will look after the interests of law-abiding motorists," promised MIBI chief executive John Casey. "And we'll be making sure that uninsured drivers pay for their misdeeds."

An estimated 5pc-6pc of all motorists, or around 100,000 are uninsured. The MIBI has now launched a concerted campaign to recoup some of that money.

Niall O'Connor and Fergus Black

I wonder if this could open the way for unaccompanied learners to be charged with driving with no insurance as they woin't have a valid licence?

Alun

What a load of nonsense. The Indo's getting worse than the Sun for misleading headlines these days. This ruling doesn't allow anything of the sort, all it means is that the non display of L-plates and/or driving non-accompanied aren't offences per se, but by doing so you're in breech of the conditions attached to your licence and therefore are automatically driving without an effective licence which is a punishable offence.

mikedragon32

Alun wrote:

What a load of nonsense. The Indo's getting worse than the Sun for misleading headlines these days. This ruling doesn't allow anything of the sort, all it means is that the non display of L-plates and/or driving non-accompanied aren't offences per se, but by doing so you're in breech of the conditions attached to your licence and therefore are automatically driving without an effective licence which is a punishable offence.

That's exactly right.

All they need to do is change the offence an unaccompanied L driver is charged with.

BTW, the Indo isn't GETTING worse than the Sun. It was always that bad. The only difference being the pictures of t1ts on page three of the Indo are usually politicians or celebs.

Anan1

mikedragon32 wrote:

BTW, the Indo isn't GETTING worse than the Sun. It was always that bad. The only difference being the pictures of t1ts on page three of the Indo are usually politicians or celebs.

The Indo actually is worse, IMO. At least the Sun doesn't pretend to be a serious newspaper.

dudara

So what can they charge you with instead?

jozi

I dont get it?

If i had a provisional licence, no L plates and got stopped i could get charged for not having a proper licence and im technically not insured either this way?

Fey!

Driving without a valid drivers license (as having no L plates and being unaccompanied is against the conditions of the license, if I'm reading it right), which, as someone pointed out, could lead to driving with no insurance (no license, no insurance).

Which then leads to the difficulty that if someone on a provisional crashes into me and doesn't have L plates or a licensed passenger, then their insurance company could turn around and say to me "They're not insured by us. Sort out your own damages. Tough." Leading to the provisional driver, who genuinely thought that they were insured, ending up in court for no insurance.

Henry Ford III

Fey! wrote:

Driving without a valid drivers license (as having no L plates and being unaccompanied is against the conditions of the license, if I'm reading it right), which, as someone pointed out, could lead to driving with no insurance (no license, no insurance).

Which then leads to the difficulty that if someone on a provisional crashes into me and doesn't have L plates or a licensed passenger, then their insurance company could turn around and say to me "They're not insured by us. Sort out your own damages. Tough." Leading to the provisional driver, who genuinely thought that they were insured, ending up in court for no insurance.

I'm not certain his cover would be invalid but in any event....

In your above scenario your 3rd party claim would be met by the Insurer.

If the offending L plate driver had comp. cover they's tell him take a hike for his own damages, and also attempt to recover the 3rd party costs paid out.

Stark

Doesn't that make things worse for everyone though as it means the insurance companies become ever more profitable and everyone else ends up pumping more money into the uninsured drivers fund?

Edit: Just saw Henry Ford's post, never mind.

Anan1

Stark wrote:

Doesn't that make things worse for everyone though as it means the insurance companies become ever more profitable and everyone else ends up pumping more money into the uninsured drivers fund?

It depends on your perspective. Lower claims could lead either to lower premiums or to increased profits (or quite possibly to both).

alias no.9

Fey! wrote:

Which then leads to the difficulty that if someone on a provisional crashes into me and doesn't have L plates or a licensed passenger, then their insurance company could turn around and say to me "They're not insured by us. Sort out your own damages. Tough." Leading to the provisional driver, who genuinely thought that they were insured, ending up in court for no insurance.

The insurance company is obliged to pay out. They can however bring the policy holder to court to recover their costs.

MrPudding

Fey! wrote:

Leading to the provisional driver, who genuinely thought that they were insured, ending up in court for no insurance.

But he did not have insurance so it would be perfectly valid for him to be in court for that offense.

He will have made a decision to drive unaccompanied and without plates thereby invalidating his license. I hope the insurance companies do follow this line.

MrP

Stark

Anan1 wrote:

It depends on your perspective. Lower claims could lead either to lower premiums or to increased profits (or quite possibly to both).

This is the Irish insurance market we're talking about Costs have dropped dramatically in the past few years yet premiums have remained fairly static. I reckon the chances of lower premiums are slim.

Personally I'd love it if all boy racers were deemed to be driving uninsured and it meant my premium as a young driver went down as a result. Can't see that happening though.

Fey!

Henry Fore III/Alias No9 - Thanks for setting that straight. I'm not too au fait with insurance company procedures.

Seth Brundle

alias no.9 wrote:

The insurance company is obliged to pay out. They can however bring the policy holder to court to recover their costs.

They are doing so already with P. drivers involved in incidents in NI...
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/motoring/2006/0705/2575338305MOT05INSURANCE.html

Zero tolerance for uninsured motorists here
Every uninsured motorist is now being pursued by a legal firm for reimbursement of any damages paid out on their behalf following a crash, as part of a zero tolerance approach to uninsured driving.
The move is part of a new policy by the Motor Insurance Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) to try and recoup part of the €50 million it pays out each year in compensation following crashes involving uninsured drivers.
John Casey, MIBI chief executive says "every single case where we settle for compensation, bar none, is now referred to Mason Hayes and Curran," a law firm specialising in debt recovery.
This legal firm was appointed in mid-2004 as insurance firms became increasingly concerned at the stubbornly high level of uninsured driving in the State and level of payments being made by the industry on their behalf.
Almost 6 per cent of all motorists in the State, or 100,000 drivers, are estimated to be uninsured. This is one of the highest percentages in Europe, where the average is between 2 to 3 per cent. Included in the group of uninsured drivers are those with lapsed policies and provisional drivers who cross the border into Northern Ireland, where neither their licence nor insurance is valid. Casey said the MIBI was handling a number of claims involving provisional drivers involved in a collision while driving in the North.
The MIBI has paid out €200 million over the last four years to drivers involved in a crash with uninsured motorists. These payouts add a minimum of €50 to the premium for every driver. In 2005 the MIBI had 1,628 claims from drivers involved in a crash with an uninsured motorist.
Every case that leads to a compensation payout will be passed on to Mason Hayes and Curran and they will seek to recoup the compensation.
The uninsured driver is also liable for the legal costs on both sides. To date, Mason Hayes and Curran has recouped more than €500,000 and secured judgments against a further 100 uninsured motorists. As most cases take on average three years to process, this is expected to accelerate sharply.
"This is a new approach. Prior to this, we decided on a case-by-case basis whether or not to pursue the driver," Casey said. "But we have found that there was such an incidence of these situations inside and outside the jurisdiction that we now go after all uninsured drivers whose crashes lead to payouts."
Coleman Curran, Head of Debt Recovery at Mason Hayes and Curran, says the vast majority of uninsured drivers "are people who are unemployed or of very limited means." More than 70 per cent are male.
"Their defence in court is often that they couldn't afford the insurance," says Curran.
"It is a very difficult base of debtor to collect from. You can't collect 100 per cent in every case because the punters don't have the money. We have cases where the debtor's address is under investigation."
Because lump-sum settlements are rarely possible, MHC regularly enters into phased payment arrangements with the insured driver.
If the driver breaks this arrangement or declines to co-operate from the outset, MHC seeks to have the individual prosecuted and jailed.
Judgments can also be attached to any property the uninsured driver owns, including property that they may purchase or inherit in the future.
The MIBI also received 881 claims from drivers involved in a crash with a foreign registered vehicle.
Casey said 35 per cent of these were from Lithuania, Latvia and Poland. A further 35 per cent were from UK registered cars.

alias no.9

kbannon wrote:

They are doing so already with P. drivers involved in incidents in NI...
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/motoring/2006/0705/2575338305MOT05INSURANCE.html

That's not quite the same thing, they're uninsured plain and simple. A claim against a policy holder who voids their cover by not abiding by the terms and conditions is still taken against their insurer rather than the uninsured drivers fund at the MIBI, so it is up to the insurer in question to reclaim their costs rather than the MIBI.

maidhc

Judge Patwell is not known for going easy anyone who breaks the Road Traffic Acts, and I don't think he would be personally in favour of learner drivers on the road. However he is a judge and has a firm basis for making his decision.

I doubt if the more serious charge can be used unless the forthcoming Road Traffic Bill is modified to include the presence of a fully licenced driver as being a precondition to a valid "learner permit".

(Of course this is only the lowly district court, so the Judge may very well be over ruled by a higher court)

slade_x

So the Thread title is all wrong.

To sum it all up any L driver now caught on the road while driving unaccompanied can be prosecuted for not having a license.

Why not just abolish the learner permit. its ridiculous, you can answer a few common sense questions and then be allowed to learn how to drive (get lessons), what the hell is that? Your Learning, when your with a licensed instructor in a L designed vehicle, you're of no danger to anyone since the instructor is in complete control. yet we need provisional licenses to prove that we can be babied along.

Why not just let anyone learn how to drive with a certified instructor and get rid of this provisional bull****, and while they do that, lessen the backlog to a max of a month

By the way I now hold a provisional license. and get to sit my driving test in MARCH 2007 :mad: , i would gladly sit my test in 2 days time if i got the chance.

But hey, there's no evidence of that backlog disappearing anytime soon so, even those of us L drivers who could confidently pass their test first time around get Fugged.

Seth Brundle

slade_x wrote:

Why not just let anyone learn how to drive with a certified instructor

Is there a register of certified instructors yet? I thought it was still basically a free for all system

Part of the cause of the backlog is the high number of cancellations and non presentations. this needs to be addressed somehow.

Stark

It's currently a free for all system as regards driving instructors. Cullen is trying to introduce regulation to the system.

The cancellations and non-presentations system could be addressed with an easy to use system where people could login as soon as they know they'll be unavailable, mark themselves as unavailable and allow someone else to login and register themselves as available for that slot.

Of course, instead they're just going to increase the price of the test to something punitive by the sounds of it.

Sparky

Tbh, I learned to drive better on my own while driving around from job to job.
In the past 2 months I have clocked up over 4000 miles on the car.
Having done lessons before my insurance would take me, I felt that 1 hour a day was useless.
Granted even before driving a car, I was on a motorbike for two years, so I knew what to expect on the road.
While I'm waiting for my test (which I would do tomorrow if I could) I have to still drive around on my second provisional, with my L plates.

Does this new ruling mean that because I have no full driver beside me, that I can be fines and my insurance invaildated?

Stark

Actually I'm in the same boat. Just got my second provisional (after two long years) and I've progressed so much further in a few weeks than I had in a whole two years of driving with instructors/parents. I now feel confident and relaxed behind the wheel while still alert to dangers knowing that noone's going to shout for me if I fail to see something. That's just the way I learn though, it's impossible to teach me anything, I have to learn everything for myself. Luckily I should have my full licence before any real changes happen in the system

You should be okay though while you're on your second provisional as it's within the terms of that licence to drive unaccompanied.

kona

as regards the insurance companies calling the insurance void, my friends mother is in the insurance industry and she has told me that your insurance isnt void on a provisional in the event of a crash.
also in my opinion i find it funny that people like myself,
who are 18 almost 19 on a provisional 1.5 years, pay premiums of e2785:eek:
just to drive for a year. i am getting a 1987 mini mayfair and thats the premium(a ****ing joke)while my dad can get insured on the same car for e200!!! from what i see i am a more competant driver than the 80year old grannies who still afther all those years of driving havn't figured out how to go from 2nd to 3rd,and who probably aint in as tip top physical condition as i am.

Seth Brundle

Given yeaterdays judgement, then it could work out that unaccompanied drivers who are driving without a valid licence could be pursued for costs in the event of a claim by the MIBI

Anan1

kona wrote:

from what i see i am a more competant driver than the 80year old grannies who still afther all those years of driving havn't figured out how to go from 2nd to 3rd,and who probably aint in as tip top physical condition as i am.

This is part of the reason why you're a higher risk.;)

maidhc

Don't forget though yesterdays judgment was just a District Court one, so its importance should not be overestimated.

All it does really is throw the issue out there. I assume the Gardaí will largely ignore it.

maidhc

Anan1 wrote:

This is part of the reason why you're a higher risk.;)

When my Grandmother's driving skills started to deteriorate the GP told her to drive very slow, and said "if you hit anything make sure and hit it easy". She took his advice, which I assume is why insurance for old people isn't loaded much.

kona

Anan1 wrote:

This is part of the reason why you're a higher risk.;)

i never said i was good !!!i said i was more competant than a 80 year old granny who pays sweet f.uck all in premiums and uses her bumpers to park the car, where poor me who wants a classic car has to shell out loads in premiums.i have taken about 12 lessons so i would say i know how to abide by the rules of the road and use the gearbox!!!but i stil have loads to learn. thats where driving with me comes in:o .
also if i was to drive with my father in the passenger seat i will have a back seat driver screaming things at me that mite not all be right.

happenstance

I am a fully qualified driver with a full UK driver’s licence. Provisional drivers are not allowed on UK motorways in the interest of driver safety. If I happen to be involved in an accident due to the inexperience of an unqualified Irish driver on a NI motorway, or any NI road for that matter, I know that the full force of the law will be applied.

However within the Republic such drivers continue to be cosseted by an impotent government and unenforced legislation. In terms of safety, as a regular All Ireland road user shouldn’t I be able to sue the state and formally request further investigation since as an EU citizen I believe that the current situation indicated highlights recklessness and complicity by a lazy police force and an incompetent government?

kona

happenstance wrote:

I am a fully qualified driver with a full UK driver’s licence. Provisional drivers are not allowed on UK motorways in the interest of driver safety. If I happen to be involved in an accident due to the inexperience of an unqualified Irish driver on a NI motorway, or any NI road for that matter, I know that the full force of the law will be applied.

However within the Republic such drivers continue to be cosseted by an impotent government and unenforced legislation. In terms of safety, as a regular All Ireland road user shouldn’t I be able to sue the state and formally request further investigation since as an EU citizen I believe that the current situation indicated highlights recklessness and complicity by a lazy police force and an incompetent government?

welcome to ireland i am sure its been tried

maidhc

happenstance wrote:

In terms of safety, as a regular All Ireland road user shouldn’t I be able to sue the state and formally request further investigation since as an EU citizen I believe that the current situation indicated highlights recklessness and complicity by a lazy police force and an incompetent government?

Nope. The European Treaty does not stretch to policing or standards of governanace.

Stark

Well actually there are talks of the EU fining Ireland over the provisional driver situation.

Henry Ford III

kona wrote:

....my friends mother is in the insurance industry and she has told me that your insurance isnt void on a provisional in the event of a crash......

Fair enough then. Kona's pals Mum has laid down a binding decree.

Nothing more to discus here, let's move along

alias no.9

maidhc wrote:

Judge Patwell is not known for going easy anyone who breaks the Road Traffic Acts

Unlike the leniency he showed when sentancing a certain well to do gentleman for the possession of pornographic images of children. Tim Allen should have done porridge but because he waved a bit of cash around, he pretty much got off. I hope nobody here still buys any products from Ballymaloe.

Hotblack Desiato

kona wrote:

from what i see i am a more competant driver than the 80year old grannies who still afther all those years of driving havn't figured out how to go from 2nd to 3rd,and who probably aint in as tip top physical condition as i am.

Unfortunately for you and all other young male drivers, not many 80-year-old grannies are driving into walls at 3am and killing 3 or 4 of their 80-year-old friends.

MrPudding

alias no.9 wrote:

Unlike the leniency he showed when sentancing a certain well to do gentleman for the possession of pornographic images of children. Tim Allen should have done porridge but because he waved a bit of cash around, he pretty much got off. I hope nobody here still buys any products from Ballymaloe.

But the relish is sooo good.

MrP

blastman

kona wrote:

i never said i was good !!!i said i was more competant than a 80 year old granny who pays sweet f.uck all in premiums and uses her bumpers to park the car, where poor me who wants a classic car has to shell out loads in premiums.

Do you know where this woman lives?

kona

ninja900 wrote:

Unfortunately for you and all other young male drivers, not many 80-year-old grannies are driving into walls at 3am and killing 3 or 4 of their 80-year-old friends.

yes they do, but as metioned earlier they do it in 1st and from what ive seen its when parking.
lets not be sexist here females have their fare share of speeding and crashes.
i think the insurance companies should take into account the type of car more, i amnt a muppet in a v-tec civic!!!! i want a classic 1.3 mini, the engine in which was designed almost 50 yr ago. i want the car because of its beauty not to thrash the bajaysus outa it on a beach.
i dont wanna race, id go to mondello for that.
oh mr henry ford, do you work in insurance or know sombody who does???i was just throwing it out there so you all know what goes on with the insurance companes policies on provo licenses

kona

blastman wrote:

Do you know where this woman lives?

take a trip to nolans in clontarf on a sat morning you wont be dissapointed, that and churches, bingo halls etc;) .
where she lives is irrelevant where she drives is.:D

maidhc

ninja900 wrote:

Unfortunately for you and all other young male drivers, not many 80-year-old grannies are driving into walls at 3am and killing 3 or 4 of their 80-year-old friends.

I have an image of monty python's "hells grannies" in my head here.

alias no.9 wrote:

Unlike the leniency he showed when sentancing a certain well to do gentleman for the possession of pornographic images of children. Tim Allen should have done porridge but because he waved a bit of cash around, he pretty much got off. I hope nobody here still buys any products from Ballymaloe.

Perhaps, but it is hardly fair to punish his whole family by boycotting the business.

Anan1

kona wrote:

yes they do, but as metioned earlier they do it in 1st and from what ive seen its when parking.
lets not be sexist here females have their fare share of speeding and crashes.
i think the insurance companies should take into account the type of car more, i amnt a muppet in a v-tec civic!!!! i want a classic 1.3 mini, the engine in which was designed almost 50 yr ago. i want the car because of its beauty not to thrash the bajaysus outa it on a beach.
i dont wanna race, id go to mondello for that.
oh mr henry ford, do you work in insurance or know sombody who does???i was just throwing it out there so you all know what goes on with the insurance companes policies on provo licenses

Insurance companies calculate premiums on the basis of claims experience. Young people pay more than the elderly because they claim more. Also, try reading Ninja 900's post properly. Pay attention, as you would when you're driving.;)

kona

Anan1 wrote:

Insurance companies calculate premiums on the basis of claims experience. Young people pay more than the elderly because they claim more. Also, try reading Ninja 900's post properly. Pay attention, as you would when you're driving.;)

i am young and i am never gunna claim unless its a crazy amount that needs done!!!
but unfortunatly its the other muppets who have cars and have serious crashes that do claim.
it seems to be poor young people being stereotyped and in some cases rightly so, but how can you justify the difference between the guts of e3000 insurance and e200 for the same product/service just being sold to different people of different age??? i will agree that as i am learning i should pay more but not almost 15 times more.
i wonder if i said i was a 'ladieeeee' could i sue them for gender discrimination hell well throw in ageism too i mean i might as well take advantage of this P.C era!!!!

Sparky

Do we insure blind drivers when they are over 70?
It seems the case with the woman across the road from me. She can't see anything without it being 3 inch's away from her, yet she gets into an old 92 micra every weekend.
I dont know how she does it, honestly.

colm_mcm

What sort of knob tints a windscreen?!

Hotblack Desiato

Sparky-s wrote:

Do we insure blind drivers when they are over 70?

Yes because their family doctors would rather certify them fit to drive than tell them the truth, even if they're a menace to themselves and everyone else!

Medical examinations for driving should really be done by an independent doctor.

maidhc

ninja900 wrote:

Yes because their family doctors would rather certify them fit to drive than tell them the truth, even if they're a menace to themselves and everyone else!

Medical examinations for driving should really be done by an independent doctor.

TBH they don't seem cause that many accidents. Take the car of some of them and they are housebound (not everyone lives beside a bus stop...etc). It would be a disproportionate response to a relatively small problem.

Anan1

kona wrote:

i am young and i am never gunna claim unless its a crazy amount that needs done!!!
but unfortunatly its the other muppets who have cars and have serious crashes that do claim.

It's not just you who can claim on your insurance. Supposing you hit someone else?

kona wrote:

it seems to be poor young people being stereotyped and in some cases rightly so, but how can you justify the difference between the guts of e3000 insurance and e200 for the same product/service just being sold to different people of different age??? i will agree that as i am learning i should pay more but not almost 15 times more.

Insurance is based on risk. If another company thought they could turn a decent profit on selling you cheaper insurance then they would do it. Younger people claim more, therefore they pay more.

Henry Ford III

Yes Kona, part of my work is in insurance so I know the principles.

I'm not involved in motor ins. however.

Hagar

At the moment the waiting list for test is longer than the vailidity of a single provisional licence. The state knows this the drivers know this. So people are applying for licences knowing they won't be tested and the Authorities granting them know it too.

We can't penalise current provisional drivers who are already in this mess it would be unfair.

I suggest the following:-

1) Don't issue any more provisional licences until the waiting time for a test is shorter than the validity of a licence. A firm test date is given to you at the time your licence is issued.

2) Abolish the concept of 2nd and 3rd provisional licences. You are either on a provisional or a full licence end of story.

3) Provisional licence holders must be accompanied by a qualified driver at all times.

4) There must be an "L" plate on a car driven by a provisional licence holder.

5) If you do your test and fail your current licence is immediately revoked as you have proved yourself unfit to drive. You must apply for a new provisional licence. One will be granted if the waiting list is short enough. As above you will then be issued with a firm test date.

Drivers found guilty of breaching the terms of their provisional licence have it revoked on the spot and are barred from applying for a new one for 12 months.

These suggestions might seem harsh but I think they would be far better than the melee on our roads right now.

kona

Henry Ford III wrote:

Yes Kona, part of my work is in insurance so I know the principles.

I'm not involved in motor ins. however.

well then my statement has more weight than yours due to the fact it comes from the motor insurance industry

Anan1

kona wrote:

well then my statement has more weight than yours due to the fact it comes from the motor insurance industry

Priceless..