Where are all the L plated cars?

Blut

Cant see any topics specifically related to the enforcement of the new provisional laws, just on their positive or negative effects so...

Bit of a random question but I'm just curious as to what's happened to all the provisional drivers? I've been out of the country for the last two months and only arrived home yesterday, in two days of driving since, about 120minutes around various parts of Dublin, I've seen two L plated cars total.

According to http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0702/1214949259240.html there are 330,000 people on permits and 92,000 on a second provisional - have all of these people really stopped driving or is everyone just taking down their plates?

Are the gardai actually enforcing the new laws? Has anyone seen random checkpoints during daytime or heard of people on provisionals being done? I'm finding it hard to believe all of those drivers just suddenly stopped driving...

Our man in Havana

They haven't stopped driving. They have taken off their plates to avoid being caught, smart eh?

I have seen a few L drivers being told to walk home and leave their cars at the side of the road, particularly around Thurles.

tdc

seen plenty around today

NiSmO

This post has been deleted.

LolaDub

Well its an offense to drive without a driver and without L plates. In all honesty i think most of them are just taking down their L plates to look less suspicious. I have two learner friends that have done that.

Our man in Havana

NiSmO wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They were told to walk because they had no qualified driver with them. There was a big checkpoint in Thurles yesterday, so they are enforcing it.

NiSmO

This post has been deleted.

groupb

Or you're just a tosser that does'nt mind driving around uninsured.

NiSmO

This post has been deleted.

Random

groupb wrote: »

Or you're just a tosser that does'nt mind driving around uninsured.

Not having L-plates or not having a licensed driver with you doesn't void your insurance. The third party will always be able to claim from you if you have a policy.

Unfortunitly it generally doesn't void any claims for damages to your own car either. I wish insurance companys would sort this out.

++ edit - beaten to it!

peasant

Warning for groupb ...easy on the insults

volkagirl

In relation to Learners drivers not been able to drive alone anymore, one must remember that this law has always been in place albeit never enforced and I for one think its a good thing.

kingcurls

its a good thing but its being pushed on to heavy handed now people depend on driving to get places and now d-day has arrived and people can either not get tests or are failing the current test for something like not looking around enough when reversing around a corner...like thats going to save lives...having said that i passed my test on the day the law came in so WUU HOOOO

Lord Nikon

kingcurls wrote: »

its a good thing but its being pushed on to heavy handed now people depend on driving to get places and now d-day has arrived and people can either not get tests or are failing the current test for something like not looking around enough when reversing around a corner...like thats going to save lives...having said that i passed my test on the day the law came in so WUU HOOOO

Tbh it's a rule that you shouldn't drive unaccompanied without a fully licenced driver. The rule is only now enforced, or so they say.

Henry Ford III

NiSmO wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You seem to have a rather cavalier attitude to obeying thew law Nismo.

Get wise, pass the test or drive suitably accompanied.

Perhaps the prospects of detection and a €2k fine are simply not a problem for you? (you've mentioned your new Golf was a gift and a new M5 in the family).

In that case maybe it'd be no harm if you were caught several times? :rolleyes:

Zube

NiSmO wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm guessing this is the guards softly, softly approach: "If you walk home, we won't hit you with the €1000 fine. Don't do it again."

L drivers should also beware that if they are in an accident with no plates up, even if it's 100% the other drivers fault, they will be in a very weak position if the other driver goes to court. "Yes your honour, I'm on a provisional, on my own, with no plates up, but the accident was totally the fault of this middle aged man coming out of your golf club".

blackbox

kingcurls wrote: »

its a good thing but its being pushed on to heavy handed now people depend on driving to get places and now d-day has arrived and people can either not get tests or are failing the current test for something like not looking around enough when reversing around a corner...like thats going to save lives...having said that i passed my test on the day the law came in so WUU HOOOO

"not looking around enough when reversing around a corner" - well actually yes, that could end up in a fatality.

:eek:

NiSmO

This post has been deleted.

craichoe

NiSmO wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Technically "Insured in the Eyes of the State'

Uninsured in the event of a claim.

Alanstrainor

craichoe wrote: »

Technically "Insured in the Eyes of the State'

Uninsured in the event of a claim.

What are you talking about?
If you are involved in a collision you are insured regardless of whether or not you were accompnaied.

Jip

craichoe wrote: »

Uninsured in the event of a claim.

Bullcrap. You're insured as long as you haven't misled or lied to the insured, fullstop.

CyberGhost

I wish they'd check for fake licences while they were at it.

Atleast L drivers passed a theory test, and didn't just buy a full licence.

They should check that and penalty should be very severe for it.

L-M

My cars at home. I walked to work

Steve

From the thread in after hours

eoghan104 wrote: »

My friend mailed me this morning saying that a guy in his office got done last night. €1000 fine for not being accompanied and €1000 for having no L plates. He said there were checkpoints in Shankill Bray and Blackrock. They were asking drivers for license, tax and insurance. Did anyone see any of this?

I know the 'media' said the guards were going to go easy on this but I think the fact that a lot of learners took the plates off may have changed this.

@NiSmO and all the other no-plates guys, looks like you'll get done anyway so save youself a grand and put 'em back on.

ezpz

I think all learners where givin plenty of notice to get their affairs in order so any1 who couldnt be bothered to get their test by now should be taken off the road,as for them that did do one and failed i feel sorry for them but if your not able to drive safely for 1 hour you should'nt be driving nither

craichoe

Alanstrainor wrote: »

What are you talking about?
If you are involved in a collision you are insured regardless of whether or not you were accompnaied.

Nope, i'm not, you can have insurance, i.e. you get stopped and your NCT is out, your still Insured, however if you have a claim and you NCT is out or something violates you policy you are not covered.

Having an Insurance policy in force and claiming on that policy are two completely different things.

I.E. same with the thousands of Polish drivers on the road, they are still technically 'Insured' but in the event of a claim their own policy will not pay out unless its specifically within the terms of that agreement.

Essentially the Gardai cannot take your insurance policy and checkout what your covered for, all they care about is that you have a cert with Details such as registration number, description etc of the vehicle.

I could have Third Party fire and theft for riding a Donkey that has a clause saying it covers me to drive any car however the gardai would just want to see a letter saying that there is a policy in for to drive the vehicle i am in, they wouldn't really care what the 'donkey policy' covers

Its totally hit and miss, but in general an Insurer will not cover a payout in the event that you should not have been there in the first place under those circumstances.

L-M

ezpz wrote: »

I think all learners where givin plenty of notice to get their affairs in order so any1 who couldnt be bothered to get their test by now should be taken off the road,

I could not agree with you more. Not one bit.

I on the other hand have pity for the learner drives who are not allowed do there test. My affairs are in order, i've had five months notice, leave me do my test

yellow012

Passed a garda checkpoint in Rathfarnham this morning, it looked like they were targetting unaccompanied learners as they had a couple of L-platers parked on the side of road waiting to be checked out.

AntiVirus

I think the majority of them are staying off the roads. I was behind a micra driving to work this morning and you could see the outline of the L plates left on the window, not only that you could see the imprint of the L on the window??

Anyway they could have passed for all I know, they seemed to be driving grand.

Well if there's one thing for sure you can bet any of those L drivers driving around without L plates up are going to be very carefull not to draw attention to themselves.

Alanstrainor

craichoe wrote: »

Nope, i'm not, you can have insurance, i.e. you get stopped and your NCT is out, your still Insured, however if you have a claim and you NCT is out or something violates you policy you are not covered.

Having an Insurance policy in force and claiming on that policy are two completely different things.

I.E. same with the thousands of Polish drivers on the road, they are still technically 'Insured' but in the event of a claim their own policy will not pay out unless its specifically within the terms of that agreement.

Essentially the Gardai cannot take your insurance policy and checkout what your covered for, all they care about is that you have a cert with Details such as registration number, description etc of the vehicle.

I could have Third Party fire and theft for riding a Donkey that has a clause saying it covers me to drive any car however the gardai would just want to see a letter saying that there is a policy in for to drive the vehicle i am in, they wouldn't really care what the 'donkey policy' covers

Its totally hit and miss, but in general an Insurer will not cover a payout in the event that you should not have been there in the first place under those circumstances.

I'm baffled by your response to be honest. It makes no sense, your insurance company will cover a third party claim if you're involved in an accident, they will pay out. You contradict yourself numerous times, on the one hand you say in your example regarding the NCT, that you are "insured", and then you turn around and say that if you make a claim you wont be insured????
So just to clarify, if a driver on a learner permit is driving unaccompanied, and they are involved in a collision, they are insured and the insurance company will pay out.

Jip

craichoe wrote: »

Nope, i'm not, you can have insurance, i.e. you get stopped and your NCT is out, your still Insured, however if you have a claim and you NCT is out ......you are not covered.

I really hope that you don't work in the industry. If your NCT is expired you're still covered by your policy.
There's no such thing as being 'technically' insured but not being able to make a claim, you're either insured or not, simple as.

Martron

NiSmO wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

whether your test was in 2 minutes you are still an unacompannied provisional driver. the sooner people get used to the idea that a law is enforced the better.

and how is the guard to know you are a careful driver? you managed to stop at the checkpoint without skidding out of control?!?!?
its the law. pass your test and then you can drive <SNIP>!!

craichoe

Alanstrainor wrote: »

I'm baffled by your response to be honest. It makes no sense, your insurance company will cover a third party claim if you're involved in an accident, they will pay out. You contradict yourself numerous times, on the one hand you say in your example regarding the NCT, that you are "insured", and then you turn around and say that if you make a claim you wont be insured????
So just to clarify, if a driver on a learner permit is driving unaccompanied, and they are involved in a collision, they are insured and the insurance company will pay out.

Well if thats what you want to believe, already verified 8 months ago. Its not a contradiction.

The law requires you to have an Insurance policy that covers Third Party Only as a minimum. However the insurance company paying out on a claim on that policy is subject to criteria laid out in the policy.

If you were driving under the influence for example your insurance company will not cover you.

If this is the case then i suggest the people driving on Driving Permits and Licenses call up their insurance company and get a letter from them stating this. Lets see how many people will get a letter from them stating that:

They will cover them in the event of a collision even if they were unaccompanied while driving the vehicle.

Somebody post that online and prove me wrong (of course remove your personal details from it)

Guarantee not one person will get a letter.

Having an Insurance policy and being able to claim on that insurance are two different things.

cpoh1

Alanstrainor wrote: »

I'm baffled by your response to be honest. It makes no sense, your insurance company will cover a third party claim if you're involved in an accident, they will pay out. You contradict yourself numerous times, on the one hand you say in your example regarding the NCT, that you are "insured", and then you turn around and say that if you make a claim you wont be insured????
So just to clarify, if a driver on a learner permit is driving unaccompanied, and they are involved in a collision, they are insured and the insurance company will pay out.

It all depends on the wording of your insurance certificate. For example if it says that "the above is insured provided they have a current valid driving licence" then if you are driving without an accompanied driver your licence isint valid and the insurance company *might* not pay out since technically you are in breach of your terms of insurance. This rarely happens though, ive only heard of it twice.

Quinn direct are the only ones who insist on the NCT certificate, nowhere is it mentioned on any of the other insurance companies T&C so its not an issue.

cpoh1

craichoe wrote: »

If you were driving under the influence for example your insurance company will not cover you.

Total Nonsense

Alanstrainor

Looky what i have here...An Email from Quinn answering said question. It was posted over on Learning to Drive there last week.

Dear Mr <SNIP>

Thank you for your e-mail dated: 26th June 2008

I would like to confirm that yes, you are covered. Going forward we will
continue to review our policy and will take guidance from the Insurance
Federation of Ireland. However you should note that the Gardai may still
prosecute you if you are a provisional licence holder driving
unaccompanied.

If there are any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind Regards
Clare McCarroll
Administration Department
Quinn Direct Insurance
Phone: 0845 850 0845 UK & NI
1890 89 1890 ROI

craichoe

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Looky what i have here...An Email from Quinn answering said question. It was posted over on Learning to Drive there last week.

Funny, I'm with Quinn too and they sent me an e-mail as well, i asked for it in writing after 3 requests and i'm still waiting 8 months later.

*Edit* I have a full license btw .. its for another party on the car

Alanstrainor

Just to note.
I'm not advocating driving unaccompanied, i'm just clarifying the fact that you are insured.

Zube

craichoe wrote: »

If you were driving under the influence for example your insurance company will not cover you.

This is, of course, nonsense, but there is a related issue. If you are driving drunk, your insurance will cover 3rd party claims, but they will not defend you in court. No matter what sort of accident happens, no matter whose fault it is, if you are tested and fail, no insurance company lawyer is going to stand up and argue your case, you lose, the whole claim goes on your policy, and good luck getting insurance after you've served your ban.

I would similarly be very doubtful that insurance companies will defend unlicensed drivers in court: no license, no L-plate, any accident of any description is going on your record.

You can, of course, tell your insurance company to go to hell and pay a lawyer yourself, but then you really aren't covered. The insurance will not pay if you ignore their legal advice and try to defend a case on your own.

cpoh1

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Just to note.
I'm not advocating driving unaccompanied, i'm just clarifying the fact that you are insured.

Alanstrainor 1 Craichoe 0

Interestingly anything said to you verbally over the phone or by email/writing is bound by law. If they tell you on the phone or email you thats good enough.

craichoe

Zube wrote: »

This is, of course, nonsense, but there is a related issue. If you are driving drunk, your insurance will cover 3rd party claims, but they will not defend you in court. No matter what sort of accident happens, no matter whose fault it is, if you are tested and fail, no insurance company lawyer is going to stand up and argue your case, you lose, the whole claim goes on your policy, and good luck getting insurance after you've served your ban.

I would similarly be very doubtful that insurance companies will defend unlicensed drivers in court: no license, no L-plate, any accident of any description is going on your record.

You can, of course, tell your insurance company to go to hell and pay a lawyer yourself, but then you really aren't covered. The insurance will not pay if you ignore their legal advice and try to defend a case on your own.

Thats exactly it.

Jip

What's it ? Yet again you're contradicting yourself.

Alanstrainor

Jip wrote: »

What's it ? Yet again you're contradicting yourself.

Thought the same myself, zube started off by calling what he was saying nonsense and he comes back and agrees????

Steve

Zube's correct, the insurance company is obliged by law to cover any 3rd party claim made against a policy (and this is normally the substantial part of any claim).

Anything else such as 1st party injury or loss / legal fees etc. can be witheld.


craichoe, can I have one of those little blue pills you took earlier? :D:D

craichoe

SteveC wrote: »

Zube's correct, the insurance company is obliged by law to cover any 3rd party claim made against a policy (and this is normally the substantial part of any claim).

Anything else such as 1st party injury or loss / legal fees etc. can be witheld.


craichoe, can I have one of those little blue pills you took earlier? :D:D

My point being thats exactly it, legal fees can run into the thousands. So on top of potentially writing off your car, your also stuck with whatever the legal fees, court costs, mediation costs etc are too.

Hence not covered i.e. YOU are not covered.

craichoe

craichoe wrote: »

Technically "Insured in the Eyes of the State'

Uninsured in the event of a claim.

+1

although it can vary with various insurance companies.

From what I was told a few months back with the upcoming of the new inforced rules, if you are involved in an accident were you not at fault but have no L-Plates, no qualified driver, nct etc... then you may not be able to claim off the other persons insurance as they can class you as uninsured. I may be wrong but that's what I was told and it does make sense.

Jip

Indeed, you're wrong. For the last time before I'm off to enjoy my weekend, I'm sure others will remain here, you're insured as long as you've disclosed all facts to the insurer, if you have an accident when you're alone and you're a provisional driver, you're insured, if you have an accident and have no NCT, you're insured, if you have an accident and drive into someone while pissed, you're insured. Now the only thing that may differ is the level of cover, but you're still insured.

Alanstrainor

craichoe wrote: »

Hence not covered i.e. YOU are not covered.

Did you somehow not read the rest of this thread? Yes your costs might run into the thousands as your insurer may bring to court to reclaim any costs they've incurred, but you are insured!

EDIT:Misinterpreted your last post. Apologies..., perhaps you should make your post a bit clearer...

Zube

hellboy99 wrote: »

From what I was told a few months back with the upcoming of the new inforced rules, if you are involved in an accident were you not at fault but have no L-Plates, no qualified driver, nct etc... then you may not be able to claim off the other persons insurance as they can class you as uninsured.

Once again: it's not because you are uninsured. Insurance means your crowd will pay people who have claims against you: you are insured and they will pay 3rd parties.

The issue is that you are not legal on the road, so your insurance company will not be keen to try and defend claims against you in court. This is not as bad as being uninsured and liable for a million bucks in damages, but it's pretty bad if your are in an accident through no fault of your own. If the other party gets a sniff of your L-plate status and pursues a claim, your insurance will just pay up, and screw up your insurance record.

Steve

Anyone want to join me walking around in a small circle for a while?

might make more progress than this thread...:D

Steve

craichoe wrote: »

My point being thats exactly it, legal fees can run into the thousands. So on top of potentially writing off your car, your also stuck with whatever the legal fees, court costs, mediation costs etc are too.

Hence not covered i.e. YOU are not covered.

We're on the same page so.
Good.:)