L-plate - Can I drive on my own going to the test centre for my driving test?

JT809201

As the title says, can I do it? I got a text from RSA about driving without the company of a full licensee being illegal. But, do they really check if you are alone or with company?

Thanks very much.

dodzy

JT809201 wrote: »

As the title says, can I do it? I got a text from RSA about driving without the company of a full licensee being illegal. But, do they really check if you are alone or with company?

Thanks very much.

No, they don't.

Sparko

They don't see you arrive, so for all they know there was someone with you and that person then went for a wander around town while you're doing the test.

Oafley Jones

It's a while since I've done mine, but they did take notice of how you arrived at the centre at Sarsfield road in cork.

notharrypotter

JT809201 wrote: »

As the title says, can I do it? I got a text from RSA about driving without the company of a full licensee being illegal.
.

Fine start to a potential lifetime of driving by knowing something is illegal but planning to disregard it anyway.

colm_mcm

I wouldn't chance it anyway.

MissShihTzu

My husband did his at Wilton. I accompanied him as the licenced driver, so we complied with the law. We met a young girl there, who clearly arrived on her own. It was early on a Saturday morning, so I was running through some last minute things with my husband, and told him to put the side lights on when setting off. The girl overheard and asked what the side lights were! I don't remember anyone checking to see if the driver was accompanied.

She passed too! :eek:

Sam Kade

MissShihTzu wrote: »

My husband did his at Wilton. I accompanied him as the licenced driver, so we complied with the law. We met a young girl there, who clearly arrived on her own. It was early on a Saturday morning, so I was running through some last minute things with my husband, and told him to put the side lights on when setting off. The girl overheard and asked what the side lights were! I don't remember anyone checking to see if the driver was accompanied.

She passed too! :eek:

Side lights? Do you mean parking lights?

MissShihTzu

I mean side lights.

TheChizler

I've only ever hear them be called side lights in the UK. Most places call them parking lights. Why would you use just your side/parking lights for your test?

TheQuietBeatle

They never checked when I did mine. My father genuinely got a call just before they called my name. But they wouldn't of known that.

Lia_lia

A friend of mine was turned away from Wilton test centre for being unaccompanied. Had to pay to full fee and all! She went back a few months later with someone accompanying her and passed. This was about 6 months ago.

I did my test in Killarney in January 2016 and went alone and they didn't notice. I'd say it depends on the test centre. If I was doing it again I probably wouldn't risk it.

Mint Sauce

Legally, no. Do they check, who knows.

MissShihTzu wrote: »

I mean side lights.

Side lights, parking lights. Same thing.

Del2005

MissShihTzu wrote: »

I mean side lights.

They are parking lights. Either dipped beam or DRL when the car is moving, except during lighting up hours use dipped beam

MissShihTzu

TheChizler wrote: »

I've only ever hear them be called side lights in the UK. Most places call them parking lights. Why would you use just your side/parking lights for your test?

First off - I am English. It was dawn-ish when he did his test, so he put the side lights on as the street lamps were on, but still a bit dark. So that was why.

MissShihTzu

Perfectly acceptable, and he still passed his test...

Sleeper12

MissShihTzu wrote:

I mean side lights.

I've driven dozens of office cars over the last 30 odd years, I've been never had a car with side lights.

jimmycrackcorm

Sleeper12 wrote:

I've driven dozens of office cars over the last 30 odd years, I've been never had a car with side lights.

I bet you've never had road tax either ☺

TheChizler

MissShihTzu wrote: »

First off - I am English. It was dawn-ish when he did his test, so he put the side lights on as the street lamps were on, but still a bit dark. So that was why.

Well that explains why you knew that term and she didn't then. Not the topic of the thread but side/parkong lights are for parking, you're much better off with headlights which are for driving when it's dark. Probably wasn't that dark though since you got away with it.

MissShihTzu

TheChizler wrote: »

Well that explains why you knew that term and she didn't then. Not the topic of the thread but side/parkong lights are for parking, you're much better off with headlights which are for driving when it's dark. Probably wasn't that dark though since you got away with it.

I've been driving for 34 years. I think I know which lights do what by now!

Skatedude

I failed nct for a blown bulb in my side light. Side light was printed on the form, so they do exist

Galbin

I know a girl who failed her test because she rocked up to the test centre without an accompanying driver. Sure, many centres won't catch you out, but some will. So don't risk it. Many testers would be delighted to fail you for it.

SCOOP 64

I don't know but it seems for some people it does not register as a learner your not suppose to drive unaccompanied at any time.

Sleeper12

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

I bet you've never had road tax either ☺

Nope it's always been motor tax. The roads aren't taxed, the cars are

MascotDec85

Galbin wrote: »

I know a girl who failed her test because she rocked up to the test centre without an accompanying driver. Sure, many centres won't catch you out, but some will. So don't risk it. Many testers would be delighted to fail you for it.

I'd say you know a girl that said she failed for not going with an accompanying driver!!

You shouldn't go to the test without one any more than you shouldn't have one on any other day.
Testers cannot enforce the law. Any learner should always have a fully licensed driver with them that that's held it for at least 2 years.

MascotDec85

For all the clever cloggs:

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Leaflets/Leaf_booklets/Correct%20use%20of%20lights.pdf


Sidelights are very much a thing in Ireland. Even the RSA say so

dennyk

The tester can't actually outright fail you for not having an accompanying driver, but if they notice it, it could certainly affect their outlook and make them less inclined to be lenient with you on other aspects of the test, and given how subjective many of those aspects can be, that is not a good thing for you. Plus it's illegal for you to drive anywhere without an accompanying driver, so just don't do it.

Skatedude

dennyk wrote: »

The tester can't actually outright fail you for not having an accompanying driver, but if they notice it, it could certainly affect their outlook and make them less inclined to be lenient with you on other aspects of the test, and given how subjective many of those aspects can be, that is not a good thing for you. Plus it's illegal for you to drive anywhere without an accompanying driver, so just don't do it.

Maybe it's changed, but when I was doing my driving test in my instructors car and was waiting at the test center, The tester asked if I could do the test now (15 mins early) as the 2 previous people were refused the test as they drove into the center unaccompanied.

They were not failed, but did lose the money they paid for the test and had to reapply for a new test date.

islandlady

The office my mother works in shares a car park with the driving test centre I went to. She came with me as my test was early in the morning so I dropped her to work and I went in alone. Nobody else I saw was accompanied. I wouldn't advise going alone, but I think its unlikely you will be penalised

JT809201

notharrypotter wrote: »

Fine start to a potential lifetime of driving by knowing something is illegal but planning to disregard it anyway.

I know it's illegal and I do not intend to break the law. You see, I got a text from RSA with regard to the test and they mentioned about driving with company. Yet, some people told me to disregard the text and you can go there on your own.

I say, it depends on the test centre. But as what people here say, why chance it?

Hollister11

Is it part of the test to have a accompanied driver? No.

Therefore you cannot fail.

troyzer

They don't check, much to my frustration. It took me six attempts to pass my test. The main impediment was that both of my parents bought automatics and I had limited access to a manual. When I did have access, it was difficult to get someone to accompany me so I had very little practice.

Pretty much every time I failed the test there was at least two or three people who went in before and after me who I could see had driven to the test centre themselves and then drove away. Both times illegally.

The problem with the system in Ireland is that if you play by the rules and have even mildly difficult circumstances, it becomes incredibly difficult to learn. Break the rules? Sure you'll never be caught anyway and at least you're not cranking out test fees repeatedly.

Galbin

MascotDec85 wrote: »

I'd say you know a girl that said she failed for not going with an accompanying driver!!

You shouldn't go to the test without one any more than you shouldn't have one on any other day.
Testers cannot enforce the law. Any learner should always have a fully licensed driver with them that that's held it for at least 2 years.

Nope. She was literally turned away and told she could not sit it that day. Hence it was an "automatic fail".

caldew

Somebody has been telling you a little white lie. You cannot have your test refused if you don't have an accompanying driver.

notharrypotter

caldew wrote: »

. You cannot have your test refused if you don't have an accompanying driver.

Source?

Kerry_2008

caldew wrote: »

Somebody has been telling you a little white lie. You cannot have your test refused if you don't have an accompanying driver.

Maybe she failed and didn't want to have to admit as such and made this up about the accompanying driver?

Alanstrainor

notharrypotter wrote: »

Source?

The test starts when you enter the test centre at your allotted time and are called to begin. There is no watchman in the car park, there is no questioning of how you arrived at the test centre.

As for for Galbin's friend who they claim were simply turned away, I just do not believe this is how it went down as there is no basis for this anywhere that I can see.

All that being said, it is completely illegal to drive at any time unaccompanied for those who hold a learner permit. So there is nothing preventing a garda from stopping you on your way to the test centre, or as you arrive.

Galbin

Alanstrainor wrote: »

The test starts when you enter the test centre at your allotted time and are called to begin. There is no watchman in the car park, there is no questioning of how you arrived at the test centre.

As for for Galbin's friend who they claim were simply turned away, I just do not believe this is how it went down as there is no basis for this anywhere that I can see.

All that being said, it is completely illegal to drive at any time unaccompanied for those who hold a learner permit. So there is nothing preventing a garda from stopping you on your way to the test centre, or as you arrive.

I think you guys are buying into the myth that the RSA puts out there that testing criteria and standards are all the same everywhere. They are not. See Churchtown (42% pass rate) vs Ennis (73% pass rate), for example. Some testers are power trippers and thus will state that the tester cannot do the test that day for such a reason. Hence why I said it was an automatic fail, rather than an actual fail.

Also, the RSA sent me a text the day before to say that I had to have an accompanying driver with me. Why would they bother otherwise?

Alanstrainor

Galbin wrote: »

I think you guys are buying into the myth that the RSA puts out there that testing criteria and standards are all the same everywhere. They are not. See Churchtown (42% pass rate) vs Ennis (73% pass rate), for example. Some testers are power trippers and thus will state that the tester cannot do the test that day for such a reason. Hence why I said it was an automatic fail, rather than an actual fail.

Also, the RSA sent me a text the day before to say that I had to have an accompanying driver with me. Why would they bother otherwise?

The testing standards and criteria are all the same. Having differing pass rates means nothing in this context. It is expected for there to be variation given human error in marking, and even conditions around different test centres.

I can't say why the RSA sent you a text, but it does seem like good advice doesn't it!

Dravokivich

They are just reminding you of your legal status as one permitted the use of a car to learn to drive. You may be confident of passing and indeed pass. But until you have a driver's licence, you don't have one and are bound by the requirements a learner driver needs to meet.

No rsa tester nor clerk at the ndls is going to say otherwise. I don't get why there seems to be such a grey area presented regarding it. I must of been told it 3 times in the runup to my last test and twice immediately after passing.

Galbin

troyzer wrote: »

It took me six attempts to pass my test. The main impediment was that both of my parents bought automatics and I had limited access to a manual. When I did have access, it was difficult to get someone to accompany me so I had very little practice

The problem with the system in Ireland is that if you play by the rules and have even mildly difficult circumstances, it becomes incredibly difficult to learn. Break the rules? Sure you'll never be caught anyway and at least you're not cranking out test fees repeatedly.

I am in the same situation, as I do not have access to a car. I notice that the people who pass first time almost always have daily access to a car, and most have driven around for years before they took a test. Before I sat a test, I honestly thought it was a test of your ability to drive safely. It’s not. It tests your ability to drive as if the car is an extension of your body.  This only comes through 100s of hours of driving, unless you happen to be one that takes to it like a duck to water. Just yesterday, I was in a car with a taxi driver who never indicated and cut loads of corners. Yet he has his licence. And failing to indicate is a lot more dangerous than what I was failed for: "not being smooth enough". Firstly, that does not put any in danger, and secondly, the reason I wasn't smooth was because the tester gave me like no warning before he would tell me where to turn. That is unrealistic and unfair. Apparently. my instructor said that the rule is MSM plus 10 seconds, but he did not give me enough time for that.

Galbin

Alanstrainor wrote: »

The testing standards and criteria are all the same. Having differing pass rates means nothing in this context. It is expected for there to be variation given human error in marking, and even conditions around different test centres. 

In mathematics, something that happens once can be attributed to random chance. When something occurs repeatedly over and over (Churchtown vs Ennis), it may indeed be human error, but human error is causing what mathematics would definite as a pattern. On a technical level, the standards are not the same accross the country. No way.

notharrypotter

Galbin wrote: »

In mathematics, something that happens once can be attributed to random chance. When something occurs repeatedly over and over (Churchtown vs Ennis), it may indeed be human error, but human error is causing what mathematics would definite as a pattern. On a technical level, the standards are not the same accross the country. No way.

The standard to be demonstrated is the same no matter what centre you do the test in.

After that there are many variables in play.

For example in the two you use to support your contention, one is a very busy urban environment where the other is a quieter small town.
So simply in one there may be a significant volume of traffic during the test regardless of time while in the other the only time an applicant may encounter a significant volume of traffic is at school start and end times.

But this is taking the thread in a different direction.

Galbin

notharrypotter wrote: »

After that there are many variables in play.

For example in the two you use to support your contention, one is a very busy urban environment where the other is a quieter small town.
So simply in one there may be a significant volume of traffic during the test regardless of time while in the other the only time an applicant may encounter a significant volume of traffic is at school start and end times.

The standard may "technically" be the same, but in reality it's not, given the consistent difference in pass rates. An instructor told me that it's easier to pass in the country areas because the tester is much more likely to be generous in their marking. The rationale is apparently that you need to drive to be able to get to work or school in the country, whereas they feel you can just take the bus if you live in the Leinster area. This had never occurred to me, but it makes a lot of sense. Perhaps that is what you  mean by "human error" but it means 7/10 will pass in Ennis vs 4/10 in Churchtown.
OP, in short: you may land on a nice tester in your centre, or you may land on a mini demiGod. So, don't take any chances. Have someone go with you to the test centre.

troyzer

Galbin wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

It took me six attempts to pass my test. The main impediment was that both of my parents bought automatics and I had limited access to a manual. When I did have access, it was difficult to get someone to accompany me so I had very little practice

[font=Arial, sans-serif]The problem with the system in Ireland is that if you play by the rules and have even mildly difficult circumstances, it becomes incredibly difficult to learn. Break the rules? Sure you'll never be caught anyway and at least you're not cranking out test fees repeatedly.[/font]

[font=Arial, sans-serif]I am in the same situation, as I do not have access to a car. I notice that the people who pass first time almost always have daily access to a car, and most have driven around for years before they took a test. Before I sat a test, I honestly thought it was a test of your ability to drive safely. It’s not. It tests your ability to drive as if the car is an extension of your body. [/font][font=Arial, sans-serif] [/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]This only comes through 100s of hours of driving, unless you happen to be one that takes to it like a duck to water. Just yesterday, I was in a car with a taxi driver who never indicated and cut loads of corners. Yet he has his licence. And failing to indicate is a lot more dangerous than what I was failed for: "not being smooth enough". Firstly, that does not put any in danger, and secondly, the reason I wasn't smooth was because the tester gave me like no warning before he would tell me where to turn. That is unrealistic and unfair. Apparently. my instructor said that the rule is MSM plus 10 seconds, but he did not give me enough time for that.[/font]

I think once upon a time they actually tested for confidence rather than smoothness but it's since morphed into smoothness. I agree with you, occasionally lifting the clutch up slightly too quickly is not imperiling you as a driver but you seem to get brownie points for it.

Having said that, your taxi driver wouldn't pass a test if that's how he drove. I've noticed even myself getting lazy. I always indicate and check my windows but sometimes cut corners and go faster to break amber lights on junctions I know I'll be waiting ages in.
The ability to learn how to drive and even to just drive generally as a younger person is entirely down to your financial resources. Unless you have parents willing to fork out thousands of euro for insurance and lessons etc, it's just not doable. In the old days, a part time summer job would easily pay for a license, car and insurance throughout a school or college year if you were responsible and saved hard. It can't be done now. I'm currently living in Australia and I paid $3,000 for my car which would probably cost twice that at home. My insurance is $28 a month for third party and it's around $1 a litre at the moment for fuel if you get it on cheap days. The only thing that's more expensive car-for-car is my road tax at around $600 a year. The same car at home would be closer to 200 euro a year to tax. But Australian road tax actually covers your legal minimum insurance coverage which is third party personal, not third party property. My $28 a month isn't actually necessary, I just have it for peace of mind in case I crash into a $200,000 Mercedes.

And none of this compromises their driving standards. They have a much stricter driving regime than we do. We have two license categories and a test for each one, in this state they have three license categories and three tests. As well as that, you can theoretically be a full, non encumbered driver within 30 months of passing your theory test in Ireland. Here in WA you need to do a theory test, then get enough practice, then sit a driving test, then wait six months, then sit ANOTHER test which requires you to have had 50 hours driving experience to do, then you have a license which doesn't allow you to drive at night, then wait six months, then you have the Irish equivalent of an N plate for another 18 months before you can drive completely unencumbered. 

Having said that, drink driving here is a massive problem.

Alanstrainor

Galbin wrote: »

The standard may "technically" be the same, but in reality it's not, given the consistent difference in pass rates. An instructor told me that it's easier to pass in the country areas because the tester is much more likely to be generous in their marking. The rationale is apparently that you need to drive to be able to get to work or school in the country, whereas they feel you can just take the bus if you live in the Leinster area. This had never occurred to me, but it makes a lot of sense. Perhaps that is what you  mean by "human error" but it means 7/10 will pass in Ennis vs 4/10 in Churchtown.
OP, in short: you may land on a nice tester in your centre, or you may land on a mini demiGod. So, don't take any chances. Have someone go with you to the test centre.

The argument you put forward here has nothing to do with the OP's question. The test starts when you enter the test centre and are called to begin. There is no way for anyone there to tell how you got there. You can argue mathematics and look at statistics all day long but it doesn't change anything. If what you are contesting was true, and it was something that was checked, surely they would insist on both driver and accompanying driver to enter the test centre, and ask the accompanying driver for their full unrestricted license? Just because there is someone in the passenger seat beside you does not mean they are qualified to accompany you.

To be clear, a learner driver must be accompanied at all times by a full license holder who has held their license for at least 2 years. But the question the OP asked was "Can I drive to the test centre on my own". And the answer is yes, it does not affect the testing process.

I've been modding this forum for a long time, and posting here for 10 years or so. Not once have I seen a first hand account of someone being "failed" for this.

Isambard

yes the answer is yes , even though it is illegal. A Gard might be interested but the test centre won't be (unless you make it so obvious they can't ignore it I suppose, even then I doubt they can fail you for it)

atat23

The driving test checklist, page 3: http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/finalchecks.pdf

They first state that if you don't meet the list of requirements, including the ones below the orange box in the doc, then the test may not be conducted, and the following point is directly below that box:

Remember that, as a learner driver, you are required
to be accompanied at all times while driving. This
of course includes driving to the test centre for your
driving test and also driving from the test centre
following completion of your test, irrespective of
the outcome of your test. Remember that, until
you are in possession of a full licence, you must
be accompanied

Based on this I am going to rent the instructor's car for my upcoming test.

I would just drive myself but on the off chance the instructor asks you and he knows you just came by yourself, he may just mark you extra hard to fail you on purpose, the human element in these tests means I'm going to do it by the book and give my self every chance I can of passing

Galbin

troyzer wrote: »

I think once upon a time they actually tested for confidence rather than smoothness but it's since morphed into smoothness. I agree with you, occasionally lifting the clutch up slightly too quickly is not imperiling you as a driver but you seem to get brownie points for it.

Having said that, your taxi driver wouldn't pass a test if that's how he drove. I've noticed even myself getting lazy. I always indicate and check my windows but sometimes cut corners and go faster to break amber lights on junctions I know I'll be waiting ages in.

The ability to learn how to drive and even to just drive generally as a younger person is entirely down to your financial resources. Unless you have parents willing to fork out thousands of euro for insurance and lessons etc, it's just not doable. In the old days, a part time summer job would easily pay for a license, car and insurance throughout a school or college year if you were responsible and saved hard. It can't be done now. I'm currently living in Australia and I paid $3,000 for my car which would probably cost twice that at home. My insurance is $28 a month for third party and it's around $1 a litre at the moment for fuel if you get it on cheap days. The only thing that's more expensive car-for-car is my road tax at around $600 a year. The same car at home would be closer to 200 euro a year to tax. But Australian road tax actually covers your legal minimum insurance coverage which is third party personal, not third party property. My $28 a month isn't actually necessary, I just have it for peace of mind in case I crash into a $200,000 Mercedes.

In my case, it was not the clutch. I was failed for lack of being "smooth" on turns. However, the reason I was not smooth was that I would be zipping along in 4th gear at 50km and then he would suddenly tell me to make a sharp turn! Then he failed me for not being smooth enough. My instructor said that the rule in the test is that they are meant to give you enough time on a turn for MSM plus 10 seconds. He absolutely did not do that. I am beginning to think that there should be cameras in the car to protect people in situations like this. I have no way to prove how little time he gave me, and he doesn't care that I remain unemployed because I cannot start or get a job in my sector without a licence.

In my case, it's more to do with the fact that I am parentless (both died young) and my spouse does not drive. Getting a licence seems to be dependent on whether or not you have a driver you live with or see most days, really. It seems you need at least 10K if you want to get a decent car AND insure it on your own (5000-6000 for a good used car and 4000 insurance). That is insane. My friends who passed their tests in 2015 (before insurance got crazy) both had old bangers that only cost them 1000 to insure per year when they were learning!

I am familiar with the Aussie system, and think it far superior.