Accompanying driver with less than two years experience

Jackobyte

I have my licence 23 months so I'm just shy of the two year limit before accompanying a driver.

I was just wondering do Gardaí treat an accompanying driver of less than two years the same as if there was no driver, or is there discretion applied.

My friend is doing her test Monday and wants to get as much practice in as possible so I'd like to help. Don't want to cause any issues for her though.

Pov06

I doubt they would even notice.

At checkpoints they generally don't even check if there's anyone accompanying.

In the rare case they would be checking they would see someone beside the learner and assume you qualify to accompany.

But then again - it can happen. I would say it's a lot better having you accompanying than nobody for the rest of us.

ProudDUB

The Guards are only going to find out, if you are stopped at a random check point and both yours and your friends licenses are inspected. It would have to be a right miserable so and so to pull you up on being a month shy of meeting the criteria. But technically, you don't meet it, so your friend would still be liable for getting dinged for not driving with a qualified driver. Whether or not the Guard decides to come down on ye, is anyones guess really. My guess would be that he wouldn't. But that's all it is, a guess. It all depends on the mood of the Guard at the time.

The main problem would be your friends insurance. If she was in an accident & had to make a claim & it was later found out that she was driving with someone who did not meet the 2 year criteria, that could have implications for the validity of her car insurance. It comes up a lot here, was people want to know what will happen to them if they drive unaccompanied.

Pov06

ProudDUB wrote: »

The main problem would be your friends insurance. If she was in an accident & had to make a claim & it was later found out that she was driving with someone who did not meet the 2 year criteria, that could have implications for the validity of her car insurance. It comes up a lot here, was people want to know what will happen to them if they drive unaccompanied.

Well third party insurance will always be valid regardless of what the driver does. The only problem is that the insurance company is LIKELY to chase the driver to recover their costs that were paid to fix the third party's car.

Austria!

Does the accompanying driver even have to have a licence on them?

Alanstrainor

An accompanying driver with a license for less than 2 years, is not a legal accompanying driver. That's all there is to this.

I should remind users that encouraging others to break the law is against the forum charter.

km991148

wouldn't this invalidate insurance as well? i.e. if there was an accident the people involved wouldn't get paid out?

Alanstrainor

km991148 wrote: »

wouldn't this invalidate insurance as well? i.e. if there was an accident the people involved wouldn't get paid out?

NO!

Usually in the case of an accident where a third party is injured, a law has been broken. This does not "invalidate" the insurance. Insurance companies must always cover third party claims where the driver is at fault.

However, it is possible that an insurance company can then come back and look for reimbursement from the insured if they have broken terms of their insurance.

TheDoc

Or just make sure that your policy covers you, when driving on your own.


I don't drive with an accompanied driver sometimes on my provisional, but I've clear print in my policy( and always got it confirmed) that in the event of any incident, I'm fully covered driving on my own.

Some insurers won't cover you at all on that request, some insurers have asked me for details of my "sponsored driver" and plenty have been fine with insuring me, on my own.

caldew

I'm intrigued. How can you get insurance to drive unaccompanied when your learner permit does not allow you.
If you do not hold a valid licence for the category or comply with the restrictions (accompanied driver) your insurance will be invalid surely?

Pov06

caldew wrote: »

I'm intrigued. How can you get insurance to drive unaccompanied when your learner permit does not allow you.
If you do not hold a valid licence for the category or comply with the restrictions (accompanied driver) your insurance will be invalid surely?

Because the insurance company is required to pay out to the third party no matter what.

You could be driving unaccompanied, drunk, high on drugs, speeding, with 4 flat tyres and the insurance company STILL has to pay out to the third party.

challengemaster

Alanstrainor wrote: »

NO!

Usually in the case of an accident where a third party is injured, a law has been broken. This does not "invalidate" the insurance. Insurance companies must always cover third party claims where the driver is at fault.

However, it is possible that an insurance company can then come back and look for reimbursement from the insured if they have broken terms of their insurance.

It's starting to become common that wording is being added to policies to void the policy in the event of unaccompanied drivers. As you say, third party claims will always be paid - but most likely they will then be recouped through the courts.

caldew

I understand that the third party must be covered but if the unaccompanied driver was seriously hurt (and at fault) are they left with medical bills and car repairs?

Also, am I correct in thinking that driving without a valid licence for the category of vehicle is deemed by the courts as driving without insurance and a ban from driving is mandatory?

Alanstrainor

caldew wrote: »

I understand that the third party must be covered but if the unaccompanied driver was seriously hurt (and at fault) are they left with medical bills and car repairs?

Also, am I correct in thinking that driving without a valid licence for the category of vehicle is deemed by the courts as driving without insurance and a ban from driving is mandatory?

Not all policies will cover medical expenses if there are any; learner or not. And I would imagine a lot would have third party fire and theft only, so no cover for their own car too.

No you are not correct in your thinking.

challengemaster

caldew wrote: »

I understand that the third party must be covered but if the unaccompanied driver was seriously hurt (and at fault) are they left with medical bills and car repairs?

Of course they are. Exact same as if they only had third party insurance (or even TPFT)

Third party
This is the minimum cover required by law, but it does have restrictions and limits, leaving you open to substantial loss in the event of an accident. If you are at fault, then only your passengers and the driver and passengers of the other vehicle will be compensated. This type of insurance provides no cover for damage sustained in an accident to your car or if your car is stolen or goes on fire.

This is from a policy booklet.

Endorsement 2: Third party only
Section 1 (Loss or damage), section 3 (If you are injured) and section 4 (Medical expenses) of this policy do not apply.

Endorsement 3: Third party fire and theft
We will have no liability under section I (Loss or damage) of this policy except for loss or damage caused by fire, self-ignition, lightning or explosion or by theft or attempted theft. Section 3 (If you are injured) and section 4 (Medical expenses) of this policy do not apply