Driving on your own

ullu

I should make it clear from the outset that the point of this post isn't to be given the thumbs up to drive on my own, rather to see what the general attitude towards it is.

I'm interested in the prevalence of this. I've been sticking to the letter of the law and only going out with a fully licensed driver in the car.

Of the half dozen current learners I know, I appear to be the only one following this. It's not like the "I need it to get around" argument works in their cases (all are based in areas of Dublin with plenty of public transport options, they don't drive for a living etc). I also make a mental note when I see a car with L plates and roughly 90% are single occupant vehicles (I'm aware the driver is not necessarily a learner in all these cases though I would take them off for each journey)

Even my instructor has said if you were pulled over and a guard was potentially going to read the riot act, showing proof that you've got your test coming up would probably be enough for them to let you drive off assuming you weren't pulled over for an offence.

So is this treated in a similar way to jaywalking as in it's something you can technically get done for but you would have to be desperately unlucky? I have seen an article saying people do get charged/prosecuted for this but that's not borne out by what I see on a daily basis.

ADIDriving

With the exception of stuff like murder the gardai have the choice to chargeyou or not. Often they will let people away with a warning. However if you have broken a second law they will do you for both. They are also more inclined to press charges as a reaction to other events. In the week follow the big crash in Kerry, I saw unmarked cars stopping drivers several times. Breaking a law is perhaps a moral and risky decision.

Max Power1

I did it for 8 months before passing my test. No l plates up, they will only stop you if you drive stupidly.Went through lots of checkpoints, only ever was asked once for my licence, I said I was a learner, they said dont be driving on your own again and let me off.There was a big thread on it (not sure whether it was here or in the main motors forum) recently.

Robxxx7

its another one of those toothless laws that the gards don't bother enforcing.
Regardless of whether anyone thinks you should or shouldn't drive on your own ... its against the law and should be dealt with accordingly ... but unfortunately you are more likely to get done for dropping litter than driving a a potential killing machine unlicensed

ullu

ullu wrote: »

So is this treated in a similar way to jaywalking as in it's something you can technically get done for but you would have to be desperately unlucky? I have seen an article saying people do get charged/prosecuted for this but that's not borne out by what I see on a daily basis.

I thought jaywalking wasn't actually an offence over here?

I would be curious on this also, I always stuck to the letter of the law. My friend was nearly offended I wouldn't let her accompany me also as she had her licence < 2 years

face1990

If you were to crash while driving alone (or were crashed into), would your insurance still be valid?
Would the insurance company count that as driving illegally, or driving outside the terms of the contract?

dazftw

face1990 wrote: »

If you were to crash while driving alone (or were crashed into), would your insurance still be valid?
Would the insurance company count that as driving illegally, or driving outside the terms of the contract?

Yes they would more than likely.

Iv'e been driving just 6 months and have my test next Thursday. 90% of the time iv'e been driving without a full license driver.

I'm very confident i'm going to pass my test! Why? Cause I have so much experience with driving on my own. Iv'e had 4 lessons (5 on the day of the test) and the guy i'm with even said its the only way to learn. You just need to drive drive drive.

Taking the risk is really up to yourself. Saying this ive never passed through a checkpoint.

Max Power1

face1990 wrote: »

If you were to crash while driving alone (or were crashed into), would your insurance still be valid?
Would the insurance company count that as driving illegally, or driving outside the terms of the contract?

Of course you are still covered (unless your policy states otherwise).

Driving illegally or not is irrelevant for insurance. Say you are driving in a bus lane or have no tax or are breaking the speed limit, is your insurance invalidated because you are driving illegally?

ADIDriving

Oddly, although you are in breach of the terms the insurance companies usually pay out. I vaguely remember, years ago, the government telling the insurance companies they should. I can see that changing as the goverments view of unaccompanied driving has changed hugely over the years.

Max Power1

ADIDriving wrote: »

Oddly, although you are in breach of the terms the insurance companies usually pay out. I vaguely remember, years ago, the government telling the insurance companies they should. I can see that changing as the goverments view of unaccompanied driving has changed hugely over the years.

Facepalm.

You are NOT in breach of the terms. The insurance states that you must hold at the time of the policy a valid or expired licence or permit for the class of vehicle insured.

Unless specifically stated in your policy as said above, you ARE covered. Driving illegally does not automatically invalidate your insurance cover.

The amount of misinformation peddled as fact in these boards is shocking.

Raskolnikov

oops

ch252

Max Power1 wrote: »

Facepalm.

Not totally, most people on learners permits (at least all I know) are with aviva with that 6 months free offer. That insurance only covers you if you have the driver who's also insured on that vehicle with you.

Max Power1

ch252 wrote: »

Not totally, most people on learners permits (at least all I know) are with aviva with that 6 months free offer. That insurance only covers you if you have the driver who's also insured on that vehicle with you.

which is why I said unless specifically stated in your policy.

With a standard insurance policy you are most definitly covered. I have confirmed this with the IIF and several insurance companies (including my own) directly.

Robxxx7

The insurance companies need to have their hands forced here by the government. Insurance should be automatically deemed void if the driver is unlicensed (inc only having learner permit) and driving on their own. They are indirectly supporting breaking the law.

I had this argument with an insurance assessor recently who tried to tell me that they insure the car not the person, which is rubbish.

ADI34722

I think the easy way out is to remove the Learner Permit insurance completely. To drive on a Learner Permit you must be insured under the car owners name and in the case where a L driver was caught on there own then the law would apply to both driver and owner. Driver for being on there own and for the owner for allowing the car to be used.

I wouldn't allow someone to drive my car on there own if it affected my licence or insurance payments.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Max Power1

Robxxx7 wrote: »

The insurance companies need to have their hands forced here by the government. Insurance should be automatically deemed void if the driver is unlicensed (inc only having learner permit) and driving on their own. They are indirectly supporting breaking the law.

I had this argument with an insurance assessor recently who tried to tell me that they insure the car not the person, which is rubbish.

Why does insurance not transfer when driving another car then? Because its the car that is insured, not the person.

ADIDriving

Insurance covers exactly what it says in the policy. It is based around the car. But specific people can be listed on the policy, under certain conditions. These people must be driving the car for its insurance to be effective in a crash (unless the car is stolen). Policies often cover the listed people to drive other cars on their own policy.
There will always be more detail in an insurance policy or the law then a boards post. All of our statements are simplified guides.

dazftw

Went through a checkpoint the other night.. He didn't say a thing. Just made me do a breathalyzer. I guess it really does depend on the guard.

starlit

You are technically uninsured to drive the car on your own unless you have a fully licenced driver accompanying you, only when being accompanied are you considered insured!

Its not a risk I am willing to take as I am still till this day not a competent driver even when with an accompanied fully licenced holder! So driving on my own is out of the question while I am learning to drive on my second provisional, I am nowhere near ready for my test and have had a pile of lessons! Won't say how many but have been trying to learn for two years and not making much progress.

Its still considered an offence and breaking the law why do it? If the guards enforced it more you could easily get points or get disqualified from driving in the near future.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Robxxx7

Max Power1 wrote: »

Why does insurance not transfer when driving another car then? Because its the car that is insured, not the person.

So by that analysis if we have a 17 year old and a 45 year old with the exact same spec car living next door to each other with 0 NCB's we would expect to see the exact same insurance premium ?

What i'm saying is that its a combination of car and driver that is covered not just car alone.

Max Power1

snuggles285 wrote: »

You are technically uninsured to drive the car on your own unless you have a fully licenced driver accompanying you, only when being accompanied are you considered insured!

Its not a risk I am willing to take as I am still till this day not a competent driver even when with an accompanied fully licenced holder! So driving on my own is out of the question while I am learning to drive on my second provisional, I am nowhere near ready for my test and have had a pile of lessons! Won't say how many but have been trying to learn for two years and not making much progress.

Its still considered an offence and breaking the law why do it? If the guards enforced it more you could easily get points or get disqualified from driving in the near future.

facepalm *2

read both a) the thread and b) the forum and come back.

Robxxx7 wrote: »

So by that analysis if we have a 17 year old and a 45 year old with the exact same spec car living next door to each other with 0 NCB's we would expect to see the exact same insurance premium ?

What i'm saying is that its a combination of car and driver that is covered not just car alone.

No, its the car. In other countries where the driver is insured and not the car - any driver that has insurance can drive any car. here it has to be a specific proviso (ie driving other cars extension)

Robxxx7

i'd better check my insurance then

so all these youngsters talking about the high cost of insurance has nothing to do with them, its the cars they are trying to insure

ADIDriving

Hopefully this file has attached properly. It is a press release from the Irish Insurance Federation.
The relevent points are that it is an law passed down from the EU that, if you have / have had a full / provisional licence for the relevent category, anyone you crash into is covered be your third party insurance. It is possible that your insurance company can have a clause to say that you and your car are not covered, just the third party. It does also seem that this is likly to change as discussion with the RSA is occuring.

Robxxx7

so i would also assume then that if the driver (learner permit holder) had fully comp insurance, in reality, they would only have 3rd party cover ?

so any damage done to their own car, where they are at fault, would not be covered ?

ADIDriving

Robxxx7 wrote: »

so i would also assume then that if the driver (learner permit holder) had fully comp insurance, in reality, they would only have 3rd party cover ?

so any damage done to their own car, where they are at fault, would not be covered ?

Not necessaraly, but potentially.