accompanined on first provisonal law

paddy reilly

well i passed my test last week exactly 6 months and 2 weeks after first getting my learner permit. I was one of the people to be affected by the 6 month rule. so if i could have done my test any sooner i would have. I passed the test first time without any lessons i just learned the rules of the road book. Over the six months before my test i drove 9000 miles and never was accompanied i drove every day on the motor way and never got stoped by the gaurds always waved through check points. i never put L plates up on my car and i always though peope who did were just advertising stupidity.

Ciaran500

Ok then...

towel401

they are not enforcing the new shyt so that's good.

but there will always be one do-gooder in this forum who will tell you to "get off the road you evil potential baby killer! i'll have your IP address reported to the gardee!!"

ShayK1

congrats on passing your test.

Berty

Congrats on passing your Test.

Im sure its going to be a weight off your mind knowing that now you will be driving Insured as per the terms of the rules of the road and your license.

I don't think there are very many people out there that didn't drive unaccompanied at some point, while on a 1st provisional, especially before the new rules came into play.

But coming on and thinking you're bloody wonderful for breaking the law and beating the system is just cocky and immature.

Have you applied for your blue peter badge yet? I bet they send you a gold one!

mickdw

quirke_folder wrote: »

Congrats on passing your Test.

Im sure its going to be a weight off your mind knowing that now you will be driving Insured as per the terms of the rules of the road and your license.

He was always insured as the insurance industry here confirmed they were covering learner permit drivers here unaccompanied until further notice.

mickdw

mickdw wrote: »

He was always insured as the insurance industry here confirmed they were covering learner permit drivers here unaccompanied until further notice.

he wasn't insured on the motorway

Alanstrainor

Deleted User wrote: »

he wasn't insured on the motorway

This is not true. He was always insured for third party damages, it would be in the insurers conditions whether he would be covered himself in an accident driving unaccompanied.

Berty

Deleted User wrote: »

he wasn't insured on the motorway

Thank you.

Alanstrainor

Alanstrainor wrote: »

This is not true. He was always insured for third party damages, it would be in the insurers conditions whether he would be covered himself in an accident driving unaccompanied.

well my friend was in an accident recently - she wasn't even on the motorway - she was just after coming off it - but because she had been on it, her insurance was null and void - she had to pay all third party damages......

Alanstrainor

Deleted User wrote: »

well my friend was in an accident recently - she wasn't even on the motorway - she was just after coming off it - but because she had been on it, her insurance was null and void - she had to pay all third party damages......

Well either your friend is telling porkies, or she decided to cover the damages out of her own pocket.

a spokesman for the Irish Insurance Federation (IIF) said motorists who broke the law and crashed while driving alone would still be covered. "If driving unaccompanied, the driver is guilty of a criminal offence, but they are still insured," he said.

Warned

"If you don't obey the rules of the road and drink and drive or break a red light, you're guilty of an offence but are still covered. It's the same case with driving unaccompanied. [That] has nothing really to do with insurance at this time."

Third parties would always be covered in a crash, regardless of the driver's fitness to be behind he wheel.

Berty

Well if thats true then its a disgrace.

If you put down your car is a 1.2 instead of a 1.4 and they find out you are not insured but if your driving in contravention to the rules of the road you are covered.

You also have to tell them if you put a spoiler on your car because it affects the drivability of the vehicle. If you dont tell them they can void your insurance on claim.

Many other examples.

Sensible as always. Well done IIF.

Alanstrainor

I think this bit needs to be enphasised

the driver is guilty of a criminal offence, but they are still insured

This is to protect other motorists rather than the non compliant insured. The insurer can then pursue you through the courts for whatever damages it has paid.

Berty

Alanstrainor wrote: »

I think this bit needs to be enphasised
This is to protect other motorists rather than the non compliant insured. The insurer can then pursue you through the courts for whatever damages it has paid.

Ah, thats good then. Not that it will put people off driving unacompanied.

Alanstrainor

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Well either your friend is telling porkies, or she decided to cover the damages out of her own pocket.

nah she's not telling porkies at all, it actually happened....

EDIT; just saw your other post there about the insurer claiming off the insured, very possible that this happened in my friends case, but I know she got a solicitors letter stating she would have to pay all damages incurred by the third party

Robbo

paddy reilly wrote: »

well i passed my test last week exactly 6 months and 2 weeks after first getting my learner permit. I was one of the people to be affected by the 6 month rule. so if i could have done my test any sooner i would have. I passed the test first time without any lessons i just learned the rules of the road book. Over the six months before my test i drove 9000 miles and never was accompanied i drove every day on the motor way and never got stoped by the gaurds always waved through check points. i never put L plates up on my car and i always though peope who did were just advertising stupidity.

In the words of Partridge. "he thinks he's Rod Stewart."

Wishbone Ash

quirke_folder wrote: »

Well if thats true then its a disgrace.

If you put down your car is a 1.2 instead of a 1.4 and they find out you are not insured but if your driving in contravention to the rules of the road you are covered.

You also have to tell them if you put a spoiler on your car because it affects the drivability of the vehicle. If you dont tell them they can void your insurance on claim.

Many other examples.

Sensible as always. Well done IIF.

You insurer is obliged to cover 3rd party claims - otherwise insurance would be pointless.

Think of it this way:-

If you drive through a red light and run over a pedestrian, why should that pedestrian be denied a claim because you drove through a red light? Your insurance company would have to 'look after' them but may recoup the costs from you if it had been determined that you had acted illegally.

Yakult

paddy reilly wrote: »

well i passed my test last week exactly 6 months and 2 weeks after first getting my learner permit. I was one of the people to be affected by the 6 month rule. so if i could have done my test any sooner i would have. I passed the test first time without any lessons i just learned the rules of the road book. Over the six months before my test i drove 9000 miles and never was accompanied i drove every day on the motor way and never got stoped by the gaurds always waved through check points. i never put L plates up on my car and i always though peope who did were just advertising stupidity.

God dammit I have been driving on the wrong roads haha.


Congrats on your test btw, I have mine in 10 days

Zube

paddy reilly wrote: »

Over the six months before my test i drove 9000 miles and never was accompanied i drove every day on the motor way and never got stoped by the gaurds always waved through check points. i never put L plates up on my car and i always though peope who did were just advertising stupidity.

Three Hail Marys and an Our Father.

andrewh5

Alanstrainor wrote: »

This is not true. He was always insured for third party damages, it would be in the insurers conditions whether he would be covered himself in an accident driving unaccompanied.

That is not correct. Driving unaccompanied invalidates insurance as it is now a traffic offence. In the UK your car is seized if you drive unaccompanied! Bloody well should be here too - accidents looking for somewhere to happen.

Wishbone Ash

andrewh5 wrote: »

Driving unaccompanied invalidates insurance

Driving unaccompanied does not invalidate 3rd party insurance. See post # 18.

Wishbone Ash

Irish insurance Federation - June 24th 2008

LEARNER drivers will still be covered by their insurance even if they crash while unaccompanied by a full licence holder.

From next Monday, all provisional licence holders will be banned from driving solo. Until now, motorists holding a first, third or subsequent provisional licence had to have a front-seat passenger with a full driving licence, but a driver on a second licence was permitted to drive unaccompanied.

Under the new law, second provisional licence holders will now also be banned from driving unaccompanied.

In yesterday's Irish Independent, it was revealed that over 335,000 drivers still hold a provisional licence, with almost 20,500 on their sixth subsequent licence.

But yesterday a spokesman for the Irish Insurance Federation (IIF) said motorists who broke the law and crashed while driving alone would still be covered. "If driving unaccompanied, the driver is guilty of a criminal offence, but they are still insured," he said.

Warned

"If you don't obey the rules of the road and drink and drive or break a red light, you're guilty of an offence but are still covered. It's the same case with driving unaccompanied. [That] has nothing really to do with insurance at this time."

However, he warned people that their individual cover might contain a clause stating that their insurance would be invalidated if they were unaccompanied. Such conditions do not generally appear in standard policies. He stressed that the third party would always be covered in a crash, regardless of the driver's fitness to be behind he wheel.

From June 30 all learner permit or provisional licence holders must be accompanied by a person who has held a full licence for two years.

If learners are caught driving unaccompanied they could face a fine of up to €2,000 and three months in prison.

"In short, under the new licence rules, and subject to a further review of the situation, if a provisional licence-holder is at fault in a crash while driving unaccompanied, claims will continue to be handled by his insurer as normal," the spokesman confirmed.

craichoe

paddy reilly wrote: »

well i passed my test last week exactly 6 months and 2 weeks after first getting my learner permit. I was one of the people to be affected by the 6 month rule. so if i could have done my test any sooner i would have. I passed the test first time without any lessons i just learned the rules of the road book. Over the six months before my test i drove 9000 miles and never was accompanied i drove every day on the motor way and never got stoped by the gaurds always waved through check points. i never put L plates up on my car and i always though peope who did were just advertising stupidity.

So what ? You think that would work for everyone ? are you mental ?
Europe was laughing at us for years for letting people get into a car on there own without any form of training at all.

Just because you didnt have an accident means nothing.

Its like saying, I drink drive all the time and haven't been caught once !!

P.S. I don't drink drive !!

Berty

I will just say one more thing.

I am of the opinion that Insurance companies should NEVER cover anybody unless they are accompanied. If you are hit by a learner permit driver who is on their own then you should know straight off they have no Insurance.

Call the Gardai.

Have them detained for driving without an appropriate license.

Take them to court unless they have the money to pay for your damages and other incidentals.

This is my opinion of the way the Insurance policies should be written not what I believe to be the current state of play.

Wishbone Ash

quirke_folder wrote: »

If you are hit by a learner permit driver who is on their own then you should know straight off they have no Insurance.

Call the Gardai.

Have them detained for driving without an appropriate license.

Take them to court unless they have the money to pay for your damages and other incidentals

That would be difficult if one is in rehab learning to walk and having one's nappy changed.

The reason unaccompanied learner drivers are still insured on a 3rd party basis is to protect the innocent party.

hobochris

How Irresponsible of the OP...

OP the reason you were meant to have a licensed driver beside you is to instruct/advise you in an unexpected event that you would not have the experience to handle, as they have already proved their road handling ability and most likely have a vast experience of the road in a variety of conditions.

(extreme)Example to prove my point: many learners would not know how to handle a car on in icy roads, they would not know what to do if the car spun out or how to prevent the car from spinning out.

Congrats on passing btw.

TheNog

quirke_folder wrote: »

I will just say one more thing.

I am of the opinion that Insurance companies should NEVER cover anybody unless they are accompanied. If you are hit by a learner permit driver who is on their own then you should know straight off they have no Insurance.

Call the Gardai.

Have them detained for driving without an appropriate license.

Take them to court unless they have the money to pay for your damages and other incidentals.

This is my opinion of the way the Insurance policies should be written not what I believe to be the current state of play.

Before the change in the penalties I would have agreed with you but now with the €1000 fine for driving unaccompanied I think it is sufficient enough. If a learner driver causes a serious accident they could be looking at more serious charges as well as driving unaccompanied.

craichoe

hobochris wrote: »

(extreme)Example to prove my point: many learners would not know how to handle a car on in icy roads, they would not know what to do if the car spun out or how to prevent the car from spinning out.

Indeed, they wouldn't know the best way to prevent that is to not drive on icy roads in the first place.

L1011

quirke_folder wrote: »

I will just say one more thing.

I am of the opinion that Insurance companies should NEVER cover anybody unless they are accompanied. If you are hit by a learner permit driver who is on their own then you should know straight off they have no Insurance.

Call the Gardai.

Have them detained for driving without an appropriate license.

Take them to court unless they have the money to pay for your damages and other incidentals.

This is my opinion of the way the Insurance policies should be written not what I believe to be the current state of play.

Your opinion and the actual hard facts are entirely different here. Irish insurers still cover unaccompanied learner permit drivers as has been stated over, and over again on this thread. Your post is written as if this is what you would currently do, when clearly it isn't - as they're still insured.

John Mason

hobochris wrote: »

.

(extreme)Example to prove my point: many learners would not know how to handle a car on in icy roads, they would not know what to do if the car spun out or how to prevent the car from spinning out.

ERR....I have my full licence but i wouldnt have a clue what to do if my slipped on icy roads, i didnt have to do that part in my driving test!

i have been looking into an advanced driving course because i wouldnt have have a clue what to do in an emerency situation.

SV

paddy reilly wrote: »

well i passed my test last week exactly 6 months and 2 weeks after first getting my learner permit. I was one of the people to be affected by the 6 month rule. so if i could have done my test any sooner i would have. I passed the test first time without any lessons i just learned the rules of the road book. Over the six months before my test i drove 9000 miles and never was accompanied i drove every day on the motor way and never got stoped by the gaurds always waved through check points. i never put L plates up on my car and i always though peope who did were just advertising stupidity.

Well done on passing your test.


Horrible attitude to have on the road though.

andrewh5

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Driving unaccompanied does not invalidate 3rd party insurance. See post # 18.

Then it damn well should! No other EU country is dense enough to allow unqualified drivers to drive on their roads unaccompanied!! It was a stupid thing for this country to ever agree to.

hobochris

pink fluffy bunny wrote: »

ERR....I have my full licence but i wouldnt have a clue what to do if my slipped on icy roads, i didnt have to do that part in my driving test!

i have been looking into an advanced driving course because i wouldnt have have a clue what to do in an emerency situation.

As I said this is an extreme example but here is a couple of pointers that could get you out of a "slippery" situation:

- when coming to a stop at a junction always aim to stop about 10 meters before your actual stop point, this way you can avoid sliding onto a main road.you should crawl slowly for the remaining ten meters up to your stop mark.

-If you spin out:
--*Don't Panic!*
--*DO NOT BRAKE*
--put the car into 2nd gear and turn the wheel into the direction you are spinning out in(this will feel wrong as you instinctively fell the n
eed to turn out the spin) but it will allow you to recover control faster. --*do not accelerate*
--just keep the wheels moving enough so they don't lock.
--if you have time put your hazards on.
-- look around quickly to see whats around you, more importantly which direction your drifting in so that if you are going to hit something you can brace yourself(sound horn to warn others).

I did a course a few years ago in a previous job on freight transport in winter conditions.. was for the company insurance i think.

there's a few others but that's the general gist..

SV

andrewh5 wrote: »

Then it damn well should! No other EU country is dense enough to allow unqualified drivers to drive on their roads unaccompanied!! It was a stupid thing for this country to ever agree to.

It doesn't allow drivers to drive unaccompanied?
It just means that if they crash into some poor unfortunate and don't have the money that the other person won't have to pay out of their own pocket., their own car is not covered however.

Berty

MYOB wrote: »

Your opinion and the actual hard facts are entirely different here. Irish insurers still cover unaccompanied learner permit drivers as has been stated over, and over again on this thread. Your post is written as if this is what you would currently do, when clearly it isn't - as they're still insured.

Jeez MYOB,

I said Insurers "Should" not Insure these drivers at all, full stop, ever. Thats what I would prefer to see happen.

I know its not happening. I know they are insured. I have read all the factual statements stating they are insured.

I just dont think they should be EVER.

The Muppet

quirke_folder wrote: »

I will just say one more thing.

I am of the opinion that Insurance companies should NEVER cover anybody unless they are accompanied. If you are hit by a learner permit driver who is on their own then you should know straight off they have no Insurance.

Who would pay for the damage to the innocent party?

quirke_folder wrote: »

Call the Gardai.

Have them detained for driving without an appropriate license.

You're obligied to call the garda for every road accident, I don't think the responding guard would take to kindly to be told how to do their job. It may not be necessar to detain the culprit.

quirke_folder wrote: »

Take them to court unless they have the money to pay for your damages and other incidentals.

This is my opinion of the way the Insurance policies should be written not what I believe to be the current state of play.

If they don't have the money to pay for the damage what good is taking them to court, They still won't have the mopney to pay damages. What does the innocent victim do for a car in the years it will take a case to get to court?

It's not a vey well though out opioion, is it?

The Muppet

The Muppet wrote: »

You're obligied to call the garda for every road accident, I don't think the responding guard would take to kindly to be told how to do their job. It may not be necessar to detain the culprit.

Untrue, you are only obliged to call gardai if someone is injured

Berty

My opinion is MY opinion.

If you have not the correct license to drive by yourself then your not insured and should have no failsafes.

Who pays? The bloody person who hit you of course.

If they have no money. You sue them like you would an uninsured driver. They could have a house, their car of course and other assets which could be liquified if they needed to cough up money due to a court decision.

The long term idea is to discourage unlicensed permit drivers from being on the streets.

Why should you have the right to drive alone if you have not passed your test?

quirke_folder

quirke_folder wrote: »

Who pays? The bloody person who hit you of course.

If they have no money. You sue them like you would an uninsured driver. They could have a house, their car of course and other assets which could be liquified if they needed to cough up money due to a court decision

I totally get where you are coming from on this, but its there, not to protect the "uninsured" driver, but to protect the victim. If this is a learner driver, it's possible that he's an 18 year old, in college, no job, driving a €200 car, if it's a case that their is a fatality (for example), the only asset this 18 year old has is his car which is probably written off now anyway, so who pays funeral expenses etc? I think it is a good thing for he victim, but I also think that, as Alanstrainor mentioned earlier, the insurance company should then sue the insured to reclaim damages.

L1011

quirke_folder wrote: »

My opinion is MY opinion.

If you have not the correct license to drive by yourself then your not insured and should have no failsafes.

Who pays? The bloody person who hit you of course.

If they have no money. You sue them like you would an uninsured driver. They could have a house, their car of course and other assets which could be liquified if they needed to cough up money due to a court decision.

The long term idea is to discourage unlicensed permit drivers from being on the streets.

Why should you have the right to drive alone if you have not passed your test?

Their car has just hit you - it will be mostly worthless if your vehicle has damage higher than the average person can pay for.

Their house would not be touchable in proceedings for this amount of money.

As a result the innocent party would get nothing. This is why insurers cover third party on drivers no matter what licencing is required.

Bogger77

one small point:
Even if the person driving has never had an insurance policy, there still is 3rd part cover from the MIBI. Those of us paying insurance pay a % each year towards that fund.

Wishbone Ash

andrewh5 wrote: »

Then it damn well should! No other EU country is dense enough to allow unqualified drivers to drive on their roads unaccompanied!! It was a stupid thing for this country to ever agree to.

You are mixing up your arguments. Learner Drivers are not permitted to drive unaccompanied here either (except in A, A1, M and W). Why do your think that an innocent party should suffer because a Learner Driver has broken the law?

quirke_folder wrote:

My opinion is MY opinion.

If you have not the correct license to drive by yourself then your not insured and should have no failsafes.

Which would you prefer if you were run over by a Learner Driver - for them to have 3rd party cover or for them to have no insurance cover? It's a no brainer!

quirke_folder wrote:

Why should you have the right to drive alone if you have not passed your test?

Thousands of people are legally entitled to drive alone without having passed a test (and I'm not referring to those in categories A, A1, M and W).

Deleted User wrote:

Untrue, you are only obliged to call gardai if someone is injured

One is only obliged to call the Gardai is someone is injured or if the vehicles are causing a blockage or posing a danger to others.

Gardai in Dublin rarely attend material damage only accidents unless they witness the accident themselves. They usually advise those involved to report it to the nearest Garda Station.

Lumen

Deleted User wrote: »

the only asset this 18 year old has is his car

He has some redundant internal organs which might fetch a decent price.

craichoe

quirke_folder wrote: »

My opinion is MY opinion.

If you have not the correct license to drive by yourself then your not insured and should have no failsafes.

Who pays? The bloody person who hit you of course.

If they have no money. You sue them like you would an uninsured driver. They could have a house, their car of course and other assets which could be liquified if they needed to cough up money due to a court decision.

The long term idea is to discourage unlicensed permit drivers from being on the streets.

Why should you have the right to drive alone if you have not passed your test?

What planet are you one, typical courtcase is,

Person has to pay other person X amount of money by order of the court

Person says they don't have it

Judge asks how much they can afford, they say 20 euro a week, Judge says ok and they pay 20 euro a week until the debt is paid off.

This is how it goes for everything, not just car crashes.

Wishbone Ash

craichoe wrote: »

Judge asks how much they can afford, they say 20 euro a week, Judge says ok and they pay 20 euro a week until the debt is paid off

...and at that rate , it would take them 1,000 years to pay off a €1,000,000 personal injuries claim!

Hence the need for insurance quirke_folder.

Graham_B18C

Deleted User wrote: »

he wasn't insured on the motorway

Couple of friends of mine work in insurance, you are covered on the motorway even on a provisional

Grahamo999

Grahamo999 wrote: »

Couple of friends of mine work in insurance, you are covered on the motorway even on a provisional

we have established that! but it's 3rd party only

To the OP: all of this means that if you had been in an accident on the motorway and you were left paralysed, your parents would have had to cover all your medical costs for the rest of your life! Very considerate!