Rules for accompanying learner drivers

plodder

My (learner) daughter drove me home from town the other night and we were stopped at a checkpoint. No problem, as everything was in order, but after talking about it at work today, I’m wondering exactly what the legal requirements on the accompanying driver are?

Apparently, there was talk a few years back of alcohol limits being applied. Was that ever brought in? Someone else said the rule is that the accompanying driver just needs to be in a “fit state”, which sounds reasonable, but I’d be curious to know what the law actually says..

hullaballoo

Yes, you need to be free from alcohol or other intoxicating drugs to the same extent as you would be if driving yourself.

plodder

hullaballoo wrote: »

Yes, you need to be free from alcohol or other intoxicating drugs to the same extent as you would be if driving yourself.

I can't find any "official" advice that says that. Nothing in the rules of the road as far as I can see. I did find a link (from 2008) that says it was going to be brought in, but nothing that says it was.

hullaballoo

I spent some time yesterday trying to find it but turned up nothing. I don't know where I saw it before, which means I can't be certain.

GM228 might happen across this thread, he's knows his way around the RTAs whereas I tend to clumsily fumble about with them like an awkward one night stand.

GM228

Back in 2007 it was proposed to introduce the alcohol and intoxicant limits for "qualified persons" (the accompanying driver).

I believe the RSA may have jumped the gun at the time and published this in the then ROTR and their website, but it never was introduced, this may be where you previously read it Hullaballoo.

So to clarify the only requirements are the learner driver must be accompanied and supervised by someone who holds a full driving licence which has been held without disqualification for a continuous period of 2 years for the category being driven and it can't be someone with an automatic restricted licence when in a manual vehicle.

cml387

Presumably the point of the qualified driver is to monitor the learner.
If drink impaired, is the learner driver no longer under the supervision of a qualified driver?

Peregrinus

cml387 wrote: »

Presumably the point of the qualified driver is to monitor the learner.
If drink impaired, is the learner driver no longer under the supervision of a qualified driver?

The policy reasons for requiring the accompanying driver actually to be in a position legally to drive the car are obvious.

It's just that they haven't got around to legislating for this yet.

scheister

my understanding was that the accompanying driver has to be in position to take over control of the car. So if drunk they would not be able to take over the car.

On a side note but on similar point. I have a full licence but only for an automatic. I cant get a straight answer if im considered a fully licensed driver if the the learner is in a manual. Using the logic from my first point im not but have heard both answered from garda when we asked them

4ensic15

It might take a trip to the Supreme Court to get the answer. No way can any random garda give a definitive answer. In criminal cases the benefit of the doubt of any ambiguity goes to the accused. That said if grada spotted someone in a comatose seat asleep in the passenger seat and an incompetent learner at the wheel, a charge might be brought, even if it might ultimately not succeed. The cost of a defence and likely appeals etc would be far more than the cost of a taxi home from the pub.

seamus

If the case is as GM228 states, then I guess in the event of a trial it would be a matter of proving that the qualified driver was incapable of "accompanying and supervising" at the time. If they were asleep, that's pretty cut and dried.

But if they're drunk that's a different matter. There is no obligation on the accompanying person to submit to a breathalyser test or roadside impairment test. They may not even be required to speak to the Gardai.

The accompanying driver having taken alcohol wouldn't be sufficient to prove they're incapable of supervising, the Garda would have to prove actual impairment. I'd be surprised if anyone has ever been charged with this, though anecdotally a few Gardai have made incorrect declarations about it at the roadside.

This notion of "must be available to take control of the vehicle" is just extrapolation/urban legend. There is nothing in the RTA which requires the accompanying driver to be available or capable of taking the wheel. Being temporarily disabled (e.g. a broken leg), or legally incapable (uninsured) of driving the vehicle doesn't disqualify someone from accompanying a learner driver.

CIARAN_BOYLE

4ensic15 wrote: »

It might take a trip to the Supreme Court to get the answer. No way can any random garda give a definitive answer. In criminal cases the benefit of the doubt of any ambiguity goes to the accused. That said if grada spotted someone in a comatose seat asleep in the passenger seat and an incompetent learner at the wheel, a charge might be brought, even if it might ultimately not succeed. The cost of a defence and likely appeals etc would be far more than the cost of a taxi home from the pub.

Its worth considering that insurers may consider a learner driver accompanied by a driver that cannot take over the car to be uninsured.

I don't drive but my dad has stopped driving due to epilepsy. He still has a full license though. An insurance company has informed me that if I were to start driving and he was the accompanying driver I would not be covered in the case of an accident.

seamus

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Its worth considering that insurers may consider a learner driver accompanied by a driver that cannot take over the car to be uninsured.

I don't drive but my dad has stopped driving due to epilepsy. He still has a full license though. An insurance company has informed me that if I were to start driving and he was the accompanying driver I would not be covered in the case of an accident.

I would get that in writing and ask them to state the exact section of their terms of business which covers this requirement. Unless your father is actually disqualified from holding a licence, you are not in legal breach so I don't see how your insurance company could find you in contractual breach.

GM228

scheister wrote: »

my understanding was that the accompanying driver has to be in position to take over control of the car. So if drunk they would not be able to take over the car.

On a side note but on similar point. I have a full licence but only for an automatic. I cant get a straight answer if im considered a fully licensed driver if the the learner is in a manual. Using the logic from my first point im not but have heard both answered from garda when we asked them

There is no requirement for the accompanying driver to take over, just that they accompany and supervise the learner driver. The problem is that "accompany" and "supervise" are not defined in legislation and there is no further legal requirements as to what the accompanying driver must be ready to do, also worth noting is that legislation does not even require the accompanying driver to sit beside you, they could infact be sitting in the back seat, as 4ensic states in reality we will only have clear precise guidlines on this if it ever comes before the HC or SC or we get new legislation.

Regarding your query re automatics I mentioned that in my post - it is one of the few things regarding accompanying drivers which is clarified in law.

GM228 wrote: »

So to clarify the only requirements are the learner driver must be accompanied and supervised by someone who holds a full driving licence which has been held without disqualification for a continuous period of 2 years for the category being driven and it can't be someone with an automatic restricted licence when in a manual vehicle.

GM228

seamus wrote: »

If the case is as GM228 states, then I guess in the event of a trial it would be a matter of proving that the qualified driver was incapable of "accompanying and supervising" at the time. If they were asleep, that's pretty cut and dried.

But if they're drunk that's a different matter. There is no obligation on the accompanying person to submit to a breathalyser test or roadside impairment test. They may not even be required to speak to the Gardai.

The accompanying driver having taken alcohol wouldn't be sufficient to prove they're incapable of supervising, the Garda would have to prove actual impairment. I'd be surprised if anyone has ever been charged with this, though anecdotally a few Gardai have made incorrect declarations about it at the roadside.

This notion of "must be available to take control of the vehicle" is just extrapolation/urban legend. There is nothing in the RTA which requires the accompanying driver to be available or capable of taking the wheel. Being temporarily disabled (e.g. a broken leg), or legally incapable (uninsured) of driving the vehicle doesn't disqualify someone from accompanying a learner driver.

Spot on, until accompanying and supervise is defined not much will happen prosecution wise.

The only thing which currently disqualifies someone from from being an accompanying driver is:-

Licence held less than 2 years
Disqualified within the previous 2 years
Licence not held for category of vehicle
Automatic restricted licence (in a manual vehicle)


Anything else is purely speculative.

GM228

seamus wrote: »

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Its worth considering that insurers may consider a learner driver accompanied by a driver that cannot take over the car to be uninsured.

I don't drive but my dad has stopped driving due to epilepsy. He still has a full license though. An insurance company has informed me that if I were to start driving and he was the accompanying driver I would not be covered in the case of an accident.

I would get that in writing and ask them to state the exact section of their terms of business which covers this requirement. Unless your father is actually disqualified from holding a licence, you are not in legal breach so I don't see how your insurance company could find you in contractual breach.

It's well established that insurance companies will tell you black is white to try get out of paying claims. Sure some insurance companies even state in their T&Cs that the entire policy will be void when someone has an out of date licence for example even though the third party cover would still legally apply like we previously discussed here.

CIARAN_BOYLE

GM228 wrote: »

It's well established that insurance companies will tell you black is white to try get out of paying claims. Sure some insurance companies even state in their T&Cs that the entire policy will be void when someone has an out of date licence for example even though the third party cover would still legally apply like we previously discussed here.

Fair enough.

plodder

seamus wrote: »

If the case is as GM228 states, then I guess in the event of a trial it would be a matter of proving that the qualified driver was incapable of "accompanying and supervising" at the time. If they were asleep, that's pretty cut and dried.

But if they're drunk that's a different matter. There is no obligation on the accompanying person to submit to a breathalyser test or roadside impairment test. They may not even be required to speak to the Gardai.

The accompanying driver having taken alcohol wouldn't be sufficient to prove they're incapable of supervising, the Garda would have to prove actual impairment. I'd be surprised if anyone has ever been charged with this, though anecdotally a few Gardai have made incorrect declarations about it at the roadside.

This notion of "must be available to take control of the vehicle" is just extrapolation/urban legend. There is nothing in the RTA which requires the accompanying driver to be available or capable of taking the wheel. Being temporarily disabled (e.g. a broken leg), or legally incapable (uninsured) of driving the vehicle doesn't disqualify someone from accompanying a learner driver.

I'd agree with that. I was asked to show my license, which I did. I think that is the full extent of the accompanying driver's obligation, beyond having the right license.

JimsAlterEgo

could the driver be potentially charged with careless driving by knowingly having a very drunk person "accompany" them ?

seamus

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

could the driver be potentially charged with careless driving by knowingly having a very drunk person "accompany" them ?

No. The charge of careless driving is, 'driving a vehicle in a public place without due care and attention'.

Having a drunk person in the vehicle doesn't affect that, unless they're so drunk that you're allowing them to distract you.

lifeandtimes

What if the learner driver is involved in an accident whilst the accompanying fully qualified passenger was on the phone/drunk or impared and not actually supervising, other than the learner drivers insurance rate going up,does anything else happen regarding the accompanying passenger? Even if the accompanying passenger was supervising and the learner driver was in an accident?


If not then what is the point that of having the fully qualified passenger?

seamus

The purpose of the learner permit is to learn and gain experience. Not to be a taxi for qualified drivers.

The purpose of the fully qualified driver is to ensure that there is someone with them in the vehicle who can provide guidance and supervision while the learner driver learns.

It's the learner's obligation to ensure that the person accompanying them is qualified and capable of doing so. Since the supervising driver is not in a position to control the vehicle, it doesn't make any sense that there could be consequences for them in the event of an accident. If the learner thinks the supervisor is too drunk to supervise, then everyone gets a taxi home. If the supervisor is not paying attention, the learner should stop the vehicle and wait until they are.

That said, there is a small chance that if a supervising passenger provided bad guidance to a learner which resulted in a crash, there would be scope for the learner to take a civil case against the passenger.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

lifeandtimes

Fred Swanson wrote: »

What is the situation if the qualified driver holds a licence issued by another member state of the EU?

Like a country that drives left handed cars on the right side of the road.. or they can read English but have a full licence etc...good question..opens up a lot more questions

lifeandtimes

seamus wrote: »

That said, there is a small chance that if a supervising passenger provided bad guidance to a learner which resulted in a crash, there would be scope for the learner to take a civil case against the passenger.

Interesting....I'd say that would be very difficult to prove or the passenger could deny all liability by saying the were only taking a lift of the person and we're not offering guidance at all and we're also unaware they were on a learner permit

plodder

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I believe it is allowed. The definition of 'driving license' includes EU licenses and other recognised foreign licenses.

seamus

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Interesting....I'd say that would be very difficult to prove or the passenger could deny all liability by saying the were only taking a lift of the person and we're not offering guidance at all and we're also unaware they were on a learner permit

It'd be next to impossible to prove unless the person admitted to providing you with the bogey advice or unless you have recorded everything in the car. Even in the latter case, they could claim the footage had been edited/altered to change the context.

GM228

plodder wrote: »

Fred Swanson wrote: »

What is the situation if the qualified driver holds a licence issued by another member state of the EU?

I believe it is allowed. The definition of 'driving license' includes EU licenses and other recognised foreign licenses.

To confirm yes anybody who holds a "driving licence" can act as the accompanying driver, a driving licence being an Irish, EU, EEA or any of the recognised licences (Australia, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Japan, Jersey , Canada (Manitoba, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador issued only), New Zealand, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland and Taiwan).

No other licence type can be used as an accompanying driver (or driving in general for that matter).

prinzeugen

plodder wrote: »

I can't find any "official" advice that says that. Nothing in the rules of the road as far as I can see. I did find a link (from 2008) that says it was going to be brought in, but nothing that says it was.

The "Rules of the road" are not law. The Road traffic acts are..

GM228

There may be changes to the accompanying drivers rules in due course, I wonder will the questions regarding the definition of accompany and supervise be dealth with? Although not actually part of the current Bill but at least it will be addressed (hopefully) and may deal with issues addressed in this thread.

http://www.dttas.ie/press-releases/2016/road-traffic-bill-2016-passes

Unaccompanied learner drivers

We know, unfortunately, that there is a real and continuing problem with learner drivers who persist in driving unaccompanied on our roads despite this being illegal. The question of responsibility regarding owners who knowingly allow learners to drive their cars unaccompanied has been highlighted by the family of Geraldine and Louise Clancy, who were tragically killed in an incident for which an unaccompanied learner driver was found responsible. Speaking today, the Minister said “I was pleased to be able to work with my parliamentary colleagues on this extremely important Bill, and to include an amendment proposed by Deputy Imelda Munster TD, with regard to unaccompanied learner drivers. Learners who drive unaccompanied are committing an offence, and I think it is reasonable to see people who knowingly facilitate this offence as sharing a responsibility for it.”

The Minister added that he “will engage with the Office of the Attorney General as quickly as possible in the new year to ensure that this provision is sufficiently robust for early commencement and enforcement.”