Rules for accompanying driver for learner

scolarda

I currently hold a learner permit (hoping to pass my test next year), and am curious about something. I know I must have someone in the car with me at all times who has held their full licence for 2 years, but my question is - do they have to be under the drink driving limit?

I'm well able to drive at at this stage, and would like to abstain from alcohol some nights and be able to drive my OH when we go see friends and things so he can have a drink (he's done it often enough for me), but I wondered is that legal? I can't see anything about it in the Rules of the Road, but has anyone any experience of this?

cruizer101

Yes they must be under the limit too. They must be able to drive the car if for some reason you cannot. I'm not sure does this extend to being insured on the car, but definitely does to drinking.

LawlessBoy

Didnt realise they had to be qualified for two years. Is this just to do with someone with novice plates cant accompany a learner or is it anyone with their full licence less than 2 years?

EDIT: Sorry for going off topic

scolarda

See Cruizer that's where it doesn't make sense to me. If the rule is they have to be able to drive the car then not just anyone with a full licence for 2 years can do it, it has to be someone insured on the car, but it doesn't say that in the rules of the road from what I can see? The rule is just anyone with a car driving licence for 2 years. The question really is, is the accompanying driver meant to advise or be able to take over? If it's the latter, is this actually in a law somewhere or have people just interpreted it that way?

LawlessBoy I'm afraid it's nothing to do with novice plates. The person must have held their car driving licence for at least 2 years. In the future they will amount to the same thing, but the novice plates only came in this year so for now it's not the same.

Atlantis50

Key action number 106, with a proposed completion date of Q3 in 2016, states:
Legislate, subject to legal advice, to prevent persons over the legal blood alcohol limit from acting as an accompanying driver for a Learner Permit holder.

http://www.thejournal.ie/breathalyse-car-passengers-l-plate-882286-Apr2013/

scolarda

Which would imply there is no such requirement right now then. Good to know, thanks Atlantis!

Would make sense to introduce legislation if that's how they intended the accompanying driver thing to work.

kerry4sam

scolarda wrote: »

I currently hold a learner permit (hoping to pass my test next year), and am curious about something. I know I must have someone in the car with me at all times who has held their full licence for 2 years, but my question is - do they have to be under the drink driving limit?

I'm well able to drive at at this stage, and would like to abstain from alcohol some nights and be able to drive my OH when we go see friends and things so he can have a drink (he's done it often enough for me), but I wondered is that legal? I can't see anything about it in the Rules of the Road, but has anyone any experience of this?

Yes the accompanying driver must be under-the-drink-driving limit. They have to be able to take control of the car in event learner driver cannot continue driving for any reason. Some more info here from the RSA.
No driver may be over the legal drink-driving limit outlined here.
Any accompanying driver must be 'acting' as the main-experienced-driver, even if travelling as a passenger & be ready to take over at any time,
kerry4sam

LawlessBoy

Another messed up law in my opinion, not enforced either i wasnt aware of the 2 year rule. I was out with a friend the other night when we wore stopped by the guards, asked if anyone had a full licence ( which i do ) asked to see it and let us move on.

scolarda

kerry4sam - is that actually a law though or just general opinion? As I said, I can't find it anywhere in the rules of the road, and it doesn't say that in the attachment you supplied

kerry4sam

scolarda wrote: »

kerry4sam - is that actually a law though or just general opinion? As I said, I can't find it anywhere in the rules of the road, and it doesn't say that in the attachment you supplied

Okay, What is it that you are unsure of exactly?

A permit is just that – a permit to drive under certain conditions & is NOT a licence to drive. Learner drivers are not taxi-drivers capable of ferrying people around at will. They must be accompanied by a fully-licenced driver who is licenced & capable/under drink-driver limit and insured to drive that car. Hence the reason behind accompanied.

Driving unaccompanied will get you 2-points before a conviction. If the fully-licenced driver is not able to drive the car for any reason, then you are essentially driving unaccompanied. Some insurance companies don’t even insure un-accompanied drivers so the learner could be seen to be driving un-insured also.

Should you get stopped:
You say “Oh they’re a full licenced driver”
Garda breathalyses the full-licenced driver and they fail ... What do you think will happen? Could be considered careless and/or dangerous driving; could be done for drink-driving...

That’s the fact and not an opinion. The full-licenced holder/driver will be checked if the learner is stopped and checked, especially so over these coming weeks!

Is you ferrying people about worth a conviction of this nature in your opinion?
Thanks,

Feel free to post if you’re still unsure on anything.

Imo, It’s not worth having unaccompanied drivers out there at any time; never mind when their are enough hazards and dangers on the road; with stressed and nervous fully-licenced drivers rushing about.
kerry4sam

scolarda

I'll repeat myself again - your opinion is not backed up in the Rules of the Road. They only state the person must have had a full licence for 2 years, not that they need to be able to take over. Therefore their blood alcohol level - or insurance status on the car - is moot by law.

I am simply trying to establish if I can do something nice for my OH ("ferrying him about" as you so nicely put it) while staying within the law. If I had (or my OH had) any doubts about my ability to drive without him being able to take over (regardless of the law), I wouldn't do it, as I'm not an idiot.

If you can back up your opinion with legislation or anything, that would be really helpful, otherwise I'm going to ignore your posts as pure fiction based upon your opinion only

kerry4sam

scolarda wrote: »

I'll repeat myself again - your opinion is not backed up in the Rules of the Road. They only state the person must have had a full licence for 2 years, not that they need to be able to take over. Therefore their blood alcohol level - or insurance status on the car - is moot by law.

I am simply trying to establish if I can do something nice for my OH ("ferrying him about" as you so nicely put it) while staying within the law. If I had (or my OH had) any doubts about my ability to drive without him being able to take over (regardless of the law), I wouldn't do it, as I'm not an idiot.

If you can back up your opinion with legislation or anything, that would be really helpful, otherwise I'm going to ignore your posts as pure fiction based upon your opinion only

I completely understand where you are coming from here in your situation, but the Judge may not be so relaxed should it reach them.

I’ve done what you’re doing, but years and years ago. Was even breathalysed twice in my life-of-driving and once they checked my windows (Tax, NCT, Insur) but never asked for me to produce my licence as a learner, no l-plates, un-accompanied.

The traffic-corp are not like your Rank & File though, those guys actually mean serious business and won’t hold back. No messing by them should you be stopped and your accompanying driver be rendered unable to drive / take over from you at any point.

It states accompanied and that is taken to mean capable of taking over and/or teaching you and capable of assisting you which they won't be able to do if over the drink-driving-limit. Otherwise, what's the point of them being there. You are by the letter of the law, holding a permit and not a driving licence to drive at will. I am sure any solicitor will argue for you should you pay them though, but this scenario won't be taken lightly in any Court.

You take a huge chance by doing this, but I understand why you want to. If you are accompanied by a fully-licenced driver who is over the drink-driving-limit and you are both breathalysed, then you’re at the mercy of the Guard. Realistically speaking though, if you’re breathalysed and you pass and the fully-licenced driver looks any way sober and coherent, I’d nearly say you’ll be sent on your merry way.

I drove someone out of Limerick one night and the fully-licenced driver would’ve fallen out the car if he was asked to give a breath sample but thankfully just waved on, but I’ve never seen it, and only heard a few cases where both those on learner permit and fully-licenced were both breathalysed.

It’s a nice idea by you, I’ve done it myself so I won’t be a hypocrite now,
kerry4sam

LawlessBoy

Just wondering where insurance stands with this? If the accompanying licence holder has to be able to take over driving for whatever reason by law are they also required to be insured on the car? Such as open cover driving?

They really should be more clear on these laws common sense would be to have insurance of course

Bongalongherb

That doesn't make sense at all. if the fully licensed passenger does have to take over and drive the car then they are not insured to drive said car. The passenger fully licensed driver has to transfer his insurance to this car before he/she can drive it, or am I wrong regarding this predicament ?. I think it is 40 euro to transfer insurance as well.

bennyc

Where does it state in the law that a passenger can be asked to produce a breath sample. As in if the passenger fails to provide one what happens then.
I just paid for insurance for my teenager , don't have any plans to go on the beer any time soon but I can see a situation where you might have a glass or two over xmas and take advantage of him as a driver.

MascotDec85

I'd imagine an accompanying driver could be done as a judge would deem them to be "in charge" of a vehicle.

Prohibition on being in charge of mechanically propelled vehicle while under influence of intoxicant or if exceeding alcohol limits.

5.— (1) A person commits an offence if, when in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place with intent to drive or attempt to drive the vehicle (but not driving or attempting to drive it), he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0025/sec0005.html#sec5


Just for clarity, the rules of the road are not law.

roadsmart

There is some amount of bull****e being talked in this thread. the present situation is that there is no law governing testing in any way of accompanying drivers, and no law requiring an accompanying driver to be under the limit, and therefore the OP is perfectly entitled to drive once so accompanied.

meep

Has this changed in the intervenimng time period?

This question occured to me recently and a search revealed this thread. Wondering if the case as outlined by roadsmart still prevails?

Dravokivich

The accompanying driver is expected to be sober.

The alcohol limit is such, because we believe it affects the weariness and responsiveness of an individual, which can be rather critical while driving. The accompanying driver is to assist a learner with their own experience of hazards, road markings, use of the vehicle. This will require them to be focused. Which we believe isn't possible while having drink on them.

Dravokivich

Dravokivich wrote: »

The accompanying driver is expected to be sober.

Expected by who? By you?

Dravokivich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Expected by who? By you?

Read the rest of the post. I find it baffling that this is something people challenge.

You make zero reference to anyone else in your post, other than 'we'. Are you a guard? If not, I repeat my question...... Who is it doing all this expecting?

Dravokivich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You make zero reference to anyone else in your post, other than 'we'. Are you a guard? If not, I repeat my question...... Who is it doing all this expecting?

I never said must be, or are required to be.

Read the rest of my post again. You don't want someone drink driving as we beleive their ability to respond is reduced. The accompanying driver is to assist the learner with their experience of how and when to respond. Which we believe they can't do if they where to drive while not sober.

"We" is societies opinion drink driving.

J_R

Hi,

Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.

If all drivers used their brains and basic common sense there would be no need for Rules or laws.

An accompanying driver is there to help and if necessary to assist the inexperienced driver.

What good is someone who is sitting there asleep in a drunken stupor. ?

meep

I agree that morally and logically, the accompanying driver should be sober and alert.

Leaving aside sociatal expectations, my question is as to whether there's a legal oblication to be so?

Can an accompanting driver be breatalised, arrested, charged and prosecuted and, if so, under what legislation?

Would the (sober) learner driver be open to censure/prosecution for not having a competent driver?

(I'm also interested in the ambigious situation of the accompanying driver not being necessarily insured in the learners vehicle in any case so could not legally drive, sober or not)

I'm just wondering if anything has changed in these regards in the past few years since this was previously discussed....

Rothmans

There is a power for a Garda to demand a driving licence of an accompanying driver (to ensure that they have a full license of at least two years) and failure or refusal is an offence.

However there is no power to require a sample from an accompanying driver. It would be a stretch to say that an accompanying driver could be prosecuted for drunk and in charge as there is no legal authority to provide a breath sample. A quick Google search would indicate that the law relating to accompanying learner drivers in the UK is very strict and the accompanying driver must be sober.

It's an interesting point alright. But under the law as it currently stands, there is no specific law that I'm aware of that prohibits the accompanying driver from drinking alcohol.

Sue Pa Key Pa

I'll throw this in to the mix. If a learner has a qualified driver with them, but is not insured on the vehicle, how can they 'take over' in the event of a problem other than instruction or guidance

If that is the case, what difference does it make if the qualified driver has had a few scoops?

cml387

I would have thought (another opinion) that a driver on a learner permit accompanied by a full license holder who is drunk (or asleep, or otherwise incapacitated) is not actually "accompanied by a qualified driver" at all and as such would be prosecuted as if he/she was alone.

I couldn't see any consequences for the passenger if stopped.

honda boi

OK lads let's test it out.
I volunteer to be the one with a few scoops on me !!! :p

Del2005

Dravokivich wrote: »

I never said must be, or are required to be.

Read the rest of my post again. You don't want someone drink driving as we beleive their ability to respond is reduced. The accompanying driver is to assist the learner with their experience of how and when to respond. Which we believe they can't do if they where to drive while not sober.

"We" is societies opinion drink driving.

I've seen plenty of people with full licences who don't react when they are driving never mind being in a passenger seat.