Caution for Driving Alone on L Plates

rosehip

As above, my niece was stopped in road tax swoop (all her paperwork in order) but for unaccompanied. She said Garda didn't check licence or paperwork but said it's a caution.

She said ok not knowing what it was, and didn't want to seem cheeky asking, and to be honest i don't know either. I looked at citizens advice site and it seems to be a very serious thing. What happens now?

Regards,
Rose

Busted Flat.

rosehip wrote: »

As above, my niece was stopped in road tax swoop (all her paperwork in order) but for unaccompanied. She said Garda didn't check licence or paperwork but said it's a caution.

She said ok not knowing what it was, and didn't want to seem cheeky asking, and to be honest i don't know either. I looked at citizens advice site and it seems to be a very serious thing. What happens now?

Regards,
Rose

Hopefully the Guard will use his discretion,(no pun intended) I am aware of a few young people trying their best to get to work in the rural area I am. They have been cautioned, and let get on with their life, that is what decent Guards do. Hopefully in your case as well.

source

rosehip wrote: »

As above, my niece was stopped in road tax swoop (all her paperwork in order) but for unaccompanied. She said Garda didn't check licence or paperwork but said it's a caution.

She said ok not knowing what it was, and didn't want to seem cheeky asking, and to be honest i don't know either. I looked at citizens advice site and it seems to be a very serious thing. What happens now?

Regards,
Rose

There's a formal caution and informal caution. This sounds like an informal caution. Basically the Garda gave her a ticking off on the roadside and told her not to do it again.

Basically she's been given a pass on this occasion. She should learn from it and move on.

rosehip

Thank you very much for the that. Much appreciated.

Kind regards,
Rose

coylemj

source wrote: »

There's a formal caution and informal caution.

No, in the case of driving unaccompanied there's either a summons or a caution. The OP's sister got away with a warning.

source wrote: »

Basically the Garda gave her a ticking off on the roadside and told her not to do it again.

Correct.

LowKeyReturn

Sugar Soap wrote: »

Your niece shouldn't have been on the road at all. Fat lot of good having your tax up to date if you kill someone.

Spare us the indignation. Plenty of people driving with drink on them, across pedestrian crossings on the green man and don't even get me started on the complete lack of hazard perception in this country.

I thought the Irish approach of turning a blind eye, because lets face it that was the norm, to unaccompanied provisional drivers was insane when I first moved here my opinion has changed over the years. Not least because the majority of people I know pulling this are at least insured. No one has ever shown me figures to suggest that learner drivers cause more fatal accidents, or any type of accident for that matter.

househero

She doesn't have a driving license (a learners license is NOT a right to drive alone), she didn't pass her test, she shouldn't have been driving and her insurance would not have paid out if she was involved in ANY accident (or is, if she is still driving illegally). She is lucky she didn't injure somebody and have to pay out £xxxxxxxxxx for a personal injury.

Learner drivers should always be accompanied by a competent, sober and responsible adult with a full driving license while they are learning to drive. The reason behind this is they are inexperienced and a danger to themselves and other road users. A 1 and a half tonne car is a death machine. Please don't let her out in her car on her own again. I am sure the guard explained how serious it was.

It should be treated more seriously, but she will prob b fine with the law. But she may be banned from driving before she has even got her full license.

Gokei

househero wrote: »

. I am sure the guard explained how serious it was. .

Yeah, right before letting her on her way.
Same as the driving instructor who told me I didn't pass my test before waving me off on my drive home alone.
Same as the nct mechanic who failed my car then handed me back my keys. Lax laws are so wide spread in this country, we don't even notice it any more.

Until the unfortunate day when your in a crash and as you've no insurance the third party comes after you personally for compensation. Civil case here we come!

Op, the only paper work your niece had in order was her tax. Permit and insurance were void as soon as she left the drive way.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

househero wrote: »

She doesn't have a driving license (a learners license is NOT a right to drive alone), she didn't pass her test, she shouldn't have been driving and her insurance would not have paid out if she was involved in ANY accident (or is, if she is still driving illegally). She is lucky she didn't injure somebody and have to pay out £xxxxxxxxxx for a personal injury.

Learner drivers should always be accompanied by a competent, sober and responsible adult with a full driving license while they are learning to drive. The reason behind this is they are inexperienced and a danger to themselves and other road users. A 1 and a half tonne car is a death machine. Please don't let her out in her car on her own again. I am sure the guard explained how serious it was.

It should be treated more seriously, but she will prob b fine with the law. But she may be banned from driving before she has even got her full license.

The fact that she is on a Learners Permit does not automatically make her a danger to other road users. While youre right about the illegality of it, youre being a bit zealous tbf.

As someone else mentioned, people who live in isolated areas with no public transport have little alternative and its not always possible to have someone with a full licence accompanying you. Thats why the Gardai are somewhat flexible about it imo.

Gokei

deccurley wrote: »

The fact that she is on a Learners Permit does not automatically make her a danger to other road users. While youre right about the illegality of it, youre being a bit zealous tbf.

As someone else mentioned, people who live in isolated areas with no public transport have little alternative and its not always possible to have someone with a full licence accompanying you. Thats why the Gardai are somewhat flexible about it imo.

The local guard might turn a blind eye, but the insurance company will jump at a chance of getting out of paying out in the event of a crash.

househero

deccurley wrote: »

The fact that she is on a Learners Permit does not automatically make her a danger to other road users. While youre right about the illegality of it, youre being a bit zealous tbf.

As someone else mentioned, people who live in isolated areas with no public transport have little alternative and its not always possible to have someone with a full licence accompanying you. Thats why the Gardai are somewhat flexible about it imo.

Not really. Her insurance is invalid unless she is accompanied by an adult with a full license (who isn't pissed). Passing a driving test is not hard, those who fail are not good enough to drive alone. That's how a test works.

Your missing two vital and fundamental points...
1. An unqualified driver should only be driving on a LEARNERS license, with somebody else, so they can LEARN how to drive safely and responsibly. If you didn't pass the test you can't pop to the shops or drive to work on your own.
2. A tonne of metal moving at any speed is DEADLY. Just because people drive without incident every day does not mean a car is not a potentially lethal weapon.

The law could quite easily require all learners to ONLY drive with a fully qualified driving instructor. But as it stands it does not, all the same LEARNERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DRIVE ALONE. Its the law and ignorance is never an excuse. If the person in question has missed such a fundamental requirement of their learners license, it may be a good idea to now go and read up on the rules of the road to familiarize her self with the other regulations required to maintain safety on the road.

Oryx

But does breaking the law (in any respect when it comes to driving) actually invalidate your insurance?

Aced_Up

Oryx wrote: »

But does breaking the law (in any respect when it comes to driving) actually invalidate your insurance?

A fundamental part of insurance is 'liability' to others. This is why you should expect to pay more or be uninsurable if you have motoring convictions, claims etc...

Crimes can be made by mistake.

So, I wouldn't think so. The only thing that would invalidate it is if you lied during the application process or failed to notify them if a change of circumstance.

Gokei

Aced_Up wrote: »

So, I wouldn't think so. The only thing that would invalidate it is if you lied during the application process or failed to notify them if a change of circumstance.

Saying you're going to have a licenced driver with you while you learn then not is lying on your application.

They will look for ANY opportunity to not pay out.
I'm not saying it's fair

Aced_Up

Gokei wrote: »

Saying you're going to have a licenced driver with you while you learn then not is lying on your application.

They will look for ANY opportunity to not pay out.
I'm not saying it's fair

True they will drag feet, it can be a grey area. Found this online (little old tho):

'The insurance companies have been covering "L" drivers who had an accident whilst driving unaccompanied. So, suppose the same applied to motorways. However some insurance companies now require a declaration from the applicant that they will not drive alone. and their policy clearly states thet they are not covered if they drive unaccompanied. So perhaps they are beginning to tighten up the regulations. If they are tightening up on driving unaccompanied perhaps also now applies to motorways'

---

So, that being said.... The person needs to 'study' the terms and conditions.

Gokei

Aced_Up wrote: »

True they will drag feet, it can be a grey area. Found this online (little old tho):

'The insurance companies have been covering "L" drivers who had an accident whilst driving unaccompanied. So, suppose the same applied to motorways. However some insurance companies now require a declaration from the applicant that they will not drive alone. and their policy clearly states thet they are not covered if they drive unaccompanied. So perhaps they are beginning to tighten up the regulations. If they are tightening up on driving unaccompanied perhaps also now applies to motorways'

---

So, that being said.... The person needs to 'study' the terms and conditions.

I'm guessing it all tightened up when the guards announced they were cracking down on it (2008 I think)
I should add that I'm speaking from experience. I'm up in civil court in November as a third party is suing me directly for compensation after my insurance company refused to cover me and the state only covered her medical costs.

elefant

Aced_Up wrote: »

True they will drag feet, it can be a grey area. Found this online (little old tho):

'The insurance companies have been covering "L" drivers who had an accident whilst driving unaccompanied. So, suppose the same applied to motorways. However some insurance companies now require a declaration from the applicant that they will not drive alone. and their policy clearly states thet they are not covered if they drive unaccompanied. So perhaps they are beginning to tighten up the regulations. If they are tightening up on driving unaccompanied perhaps also now applies to motorways'

---

So, that being said.... The person needs to 'study' the terms and conditions.

When I had my learner permit I was specifically told at the insurance office that my insurance would be valid if I was driving on my own. This was in circa 2010.

Del2005

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Spare us the indignation. Plenty of people driving with drink on them, across pedestrian crossings on the green man and don't even get me started on the complete lack of hazard perception in this country.

I thought the Irish approach of turning a blind eye, because lets face it that was the norm, to unaccompanied provisional drivers was insane when I first moved here my opinion has changed over the years. Not least because the majority of people I know pulling this are at least insured. No one has ever shown me figures to suggest that learner drivers cause more fatal accidents, or any type of accident for that matter.

The reason why a blind eye was turned was because it took over a year to get a date for a test. Now it's only a couple of months and with the mandatory 6 months before applying if a driver is good enough they can pass, the relatively easy, test after 7 months on a permit. So there's no reason to be driving alone on a permit unless your not capable of passing the test!

We don't need any figures to prove learners cause more or less accidents as they haven't even shown they can master the basic test to be on the road in the first place.

househero wrote: »

She doesn't have a driving license (a learners license is NOT a right to drive alone), she didn't pass her test, she shouldn't have been driving and her insurance would not have paid out if she was involved in ANY accident (or is, if she is still driving illegally). She is lucky she didn't injure somebody and have to pay out £xxxxxxxxxx for a personal injury.

It's name was changed from "provisional licence" to "learners permit" to try and get the idea it was a licence out of peoples head. It's only a permit to learn to drive

househero wrote: »

Learner drivers should always be accompanied by a competent, sober and responsible adult with a full driving license while they are learning to drive. The reason behind this is they are inexperienced and a danger to themselves and other road users. A 1 and a half tonne car is a death machine. Please don't let her out in her car on her own again. I am sure the guard explained how serious it was.

That's not the law. The law is the accompanying driver has have to have held a licence in the category for a least 2 years, nothing more or less. There's no mention of them needing to be sober.

Oryx wrote: »

But does breaking the law (in any respect when it comes to driving) actually invalidate your insurance?

By driving outside the terms of her permit she's lost everything bar 3rd party cover. The insurance companies have always had the ability to then sue the person in civil court for any monies paid out to 3rd parties but AFAIK haven't been doing it to date.

No Pants

Del2005 wrote: »

That's not the law. The law is the accompanying driver has have to have held a licence in the category for a least 2 years, nothing more or less. There's no mention of them needing to be sober

I think that's been discussed on here before. The accompanying has the same restrictions on them as a driver. If they're not sober, they can't be the accompanying driver, in which case the learner driver is not entitled to drive. If they insist on being the accompanying driver, then they can be prosecuted for being drunk as they are considered in charge of the vehicle. Not sure if this has been tested.

coylemj

Driving unaccompanied on a learner permit does not invalidate your insurance, nor does driving with no tax disc or no NCT.

Insurance companies are constrained by law in terms of the circumstances whereby they can repudiate cover, virtually the only circumstances where they can walk away from a third party claim is where the driver has been disqualified or never held a licence of any kind.

Over the years insurance companies attempt to insert various conditions (having a valid NCT is the most recent one) in their policies but when push comes to shove they are forced to back down and the restriction gets dropped from the policy document.

So can people please get off their high horses and stop quoting imaginary conditions that do not exist in insurance policies.

Del2005

No Pants wrote: »

I think that's been discussed on here before. The accompanying has the same restrictions on them as a driver. If they're not sober, they can't be the accompanying driver, in which case the learner driver is not entitled to drive. If they insist on being the accompanying driver, then they can be prosecuted for being drunk as they are considered in charge of the vehicle. Not sure if this has been tested.

No there was a big thread in Motors about this. There's no mention in the Statue book of the accompanying driver needing to be anything other than in the vehicle and have held a licence for that category for 2 years.

Can you show where it says otherwise?

LowKeyReturn

There is some absolute non-sense being spouted in this thread ref insurance.

Even if the insurance was invalid, which it isn't, MIBI would ensure the plaintiff party was compensated.

OldNotWIse

househero wrote: »

She doesn't have a driving license (a learners license is NOT a right to drive alone), she didn't pass her test, she shouldn't have been driving and her insurance would not have paid out if she was involved in ANY accident (or is, if she is still driving illegally). She is lucky she didn't injure somebody and have to pay out £xxxxxxxxxx for a personal injury.

Learner drivers should always be accompanied by a competent, sober and responsible adult with a full driving license while they are learning to drive. The reason behind this is they are inexperienced and a danger to themselves and other road users. A 1 and a half tonne car is a death machine. Please don't let her out in her car on her own again. I am sure the guard explained how serious it was.

It should be treated more seriously, but she will prob b fine with the law. But she may be banned from driving before she has even got her full license.

Is this expressly stated? Just curious because I often wondered about it. If you have a licensed driver beside you and you are stopped at a checkpoint, can they be breathalised?

No Pants

Del2005 wrote: »

No there was a big thread in Motors about this. There's no mention in the Statue book of the accompanying driver needing to be anything other than in the vehicle and have held a licence for that category for 2 years.

Can you show where it says otherwise?

No, I just remember seeing it discussed on here before. This thread, or one similar.

Gokei

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

There is some absolute non-sense being spouted in this thread ref insurance.

Even if the insurance was invalid, which it isn't, MIBI would ensure the plaintiff party was compensated.

Wow, thats a load off my mind. No need to worry so. Cheers for that.
Will you pm me your contact details so i can tell my solicitor you said that?
That'd be great, cheers.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Gokei

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Your solicitor has not got a clue. He needs to read his Road Traffic Acts.

He's closed till Monday. But just to set my mind at ease, can you quote the relavent section?

Thanks

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ezra_pound

Oryx wrote: »

But does breaking the law (in any respect when it comes to driving) actually invalidate your insurance?

No. The issue here is that insurance only covers licensed drivers. by driving unaccompanied a provisional licence holder is essentially not licensed to derive andr therefore uninsured. Nothing to do with lawbreaking.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

sdanseo

househero wrote: »

Not really. Her insurance is invalid unless she is accompanied by an adult with a full license (who isn't pissed). Passing a driving test is not hard, those who fail are not good enough to drive alone. That's how a test works.

Your missing two vital and fundamental points...
1. An unqualified driver should only be driving on a LEARNERS license, with somebody else, so they can LEARN how to drive safely and responsibly. If you didn't pass the test you can't pop to the shops or drive to work on your own.
2. A tonne of metal moving at any speed is DEADLY. Just because people drive without incident every day does not mean a car is not a potentially lethal weapon.

The law could quite easily require all learners to ONLY drive with a fully qualified driving instructor. But as it stands it does not, all the same LEARNERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DRIVE ALONE. Its the law and ignorance is never an excuse. If the person in question has missed such a fundamental requirement of their learners license, it may be a good idea to now go and read up on the rules of the road to familiarize her self with the other regulations required to maintain safety on the road.

While you are right in a factual sense, do us all a favour and leap down off the high horse will you? We don't need to read attitude.

A car is only as much of a deadly weapon as a kitchen knife is in the context you're using. The only reason you need a license to drive it is because it's more complex.

In the eyes of the law, a learner's permit is still a provisional form of licence and therefore the driver is insured whether they are accompanied or not. If this were not the case, Gardaí simply wouldn't be allowing them off with a "ticking off".

Do I think learner drivers should be allowed drive alone? With the benefit of hindsight, no. Not because some drivers are great and others are crap, but because you have to legislate reasonably taking into account the worst case as well as the best.

From time to time people who know they are decent drivers will ignore the rule as it applies to them and drive anyway, and luckily there are some decent Gardaí in the state who can recognise good driving and wave them on their way. Equally, I would hope that those who are terrible drivers and drivng alone might be more likely to be stopped and punished. Both situations are rare now, given the lack of checkpoints of course.

Del2005

No Pants wrote: »

No, I just remember seeing it discussed on here before. This thread, or one similar.

Thought it was a bigger thread, even Leo said they need to change the law.

sdeire wrote: »

From time to time people who know they are decent drivers will ignore the rule as it applies to them and drive anyway, and luckily there are some decent Gardaí in the state who can recognise good driving and wave them on their way. Equally, I would hope that those who are terrible drivers and drivng alone might be more likely to be stopped and punished. Both situations are rare now, given the lack of checkpoints of course.

And here in lies the problem. Everyone thinks they are a decent driver, if they are that good a driver then why haven't they passed the very basic test to get a full licence so they don't need to be supervised?

Back in the days when it took over a year to get a date for the test the lack enforcement was understandable, but with it only taking a couple of months to get a test now there's no excuse for someone to be driving unaccompanied. You get your permit, do your 12 EDT and apply for the test blocking out the 6 months till your allowed to sit it. So it should only take 7 months for these "decent" drivers to get from getting lifts to being fully licensed.

BTW how does a Garda at a checkpoint recognise good driving?

coylemj

ezra_pound wrote: »

No. The issue here is that insurance only covers licensed drivers. by driving unaccompanied a provisional licence holder is essentially not licensed to derive andr therefore uninsured. Nothing to do with lawbreaking.

Total nonsense. If that was the case then everyone who was prosecuted for driving with no licence (because it had expired) would also ipso facto be guilty of driving uninsured which is most definitely not the case.

If you disagree, please tell me the name of an insurance company which states in their policy document that you must have either a current full driving licence or hold a current learner permit and have an accompanying fully licensed driver in order for your cover to be valid.

LowKeyReturn

Del2005 wrote: »

And here in lies the problem. Everyone thinks they are a decent driver, if they are that good a driver then why haven't they passed the very basic test to get a full licence so they don't need to be supervised?

I think this is the flaw in your premise. Most L drivers I know think they're crap, that's why they don't put in for the test. They may be slightly more hesitant and granted that could be dangerous. It's people who've been driving for years, who have lost the 'sense of danger' associated with it that are more likely to have accidents in my opinion. Generally the ones texting / taking calls on the mobile.

lOWCOUNTRY

Gokei wrote: »

Wow, thats a load off my mind. No need to worry so. Cheers for that.
Will you pm me your contact details so i can tell my solicitor you said that?
That'd be great, cheers.

THE MIBI compensate injured Third Parties who cannot recover from an insurance company if they makew their claim in the proper form. The MIBI can and do pursue the offending motorist themselves and seek to recover the amount pasid out. Look in STubbs gazette and you will seee numerous judgments in favour of the MIBI. The MIBI is not a way for the uninsured to avoid their liabilities. I am sure your solicitor knows that perfectly well, unlike some posters in this forum.