# What happens if L Drivers are caught unaccompanied



## askU (13 Jun 2008)

What happens if L Drivers are caught unaccompanied  without a person that has a full licence?


----------



## Staples (13 Jun 2008)

I thought provisional drivers were only required to be accompanied by a full-license holder if they _didn't _display an L plate i.e. one or the other but not both.

Open to correction though.


----------



## DeeFox (13 Jun 2008)

Listening to talk radio earlier - fines of up to €1000 for Learner drivers caught without accompanying full license holder.
Provisional drivers must display L plates at all times and must have full license holder with them at all times (the second part was not enforced up to now but will be from July).


----------



## Seagull (13 Jun 2008)

You need to display L plates and be accompanied by someone holding a full license. There's also a minimum period that the person accompanying you should have held a full license, I think 2 years.


----------



## aircobra19 (13 Jun 2008)

DeeFox said:


> Listening to talk radio earlier - fines of up to €1000 for Learner drivers caught without accompanying full license holder.
> Provisional drivers must display L plates at all times and must have full license holder with them at all times (the second part was not enforced up to now but will be from July).


 
They really need to clamp down on this, and imported cars, no tax and insurance too.


----------



## briancbyrne (13 Jun 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> They really need to clamp down on this, and imported cars, no tax and insurance too.


 
I would rather see them spending the man hours clamping down on speeding / eratic & dangerous driving rather than on the revenue generating typical fines - though I accept these areas need to be addressed aswell. 
I just think the priorities are wrong.
What will happen when they enforce this rule about L plates /unoccumpanied driving etc and the level of road deaths stays at the same level which I suspect it will.
What other "easy target" (young drivers) will they blame I wonder?

Priority should be given to infrastructure improvement - -relatively simple changes such as the installation of cental dividing barriers would see adramatic fall off in road deaths.


----------



## aircobra19 (13 Jun 2008)

Its not the Guards job to build roads and barriers.

I see everyday an increasing number of L plate drivers (of all ages and nationalities including Irish) who obviously cannot drive and haven't the first notion about the rules of the road. They wander all over the road and through junctions, leaving a trail of near misses in their wake. Personally I think where theres smoke there fire. People are generally very consistent. Someone who decides to ignore all the basic rules and legal requirements, and then drives without a valid licence, tax or insurance, isn't going to bother about following the rules of the road very carefully are they. Quite a number of recent high profile accidents with multiple deaths have involved drivers like this.


----------



## peteb (13 Jun 2008)

i googled this yesterday and couldnt find it.  I think i read in the Indo today it was fine of upto €2,000 and/or jail sentence.


----------



## aircobra19 (13 Jun 2008)

Would a "good driver" cherry pick the laws they obey.


----------



## Guest114 (13 Jun 2008)

I can't wait till they start pulling over L plate vehicles on motorways like the M50 and M1. It's been an absolute disgrace for more years than I care to remember. I pay a toll to get away from L plate drivers. Time to kick them off the tolled motorways.


----------



## rmelly (13 Jun 2008)

uiop said:


> someone who is good at driving.


 
What exactly does that mean?


----------



## rmelly (13 Jun 2008)

is good enough, but hasn't? Given that waiting lists have fallen drastically, what's their excuse for not having a full licence?


----------



## mathepac (13 Jun 2008)

uiop said:


> ...
> It means someone who is good enough to pass the test and makes fewer errors than lazy drivers who passed the test years ago or had the licence handed to them.


Do I take it then that you don't have a full driving licence?


----------



## aircobra19 (13 Jun 2008)

uiop said:


> Whats up with all the philosophical type queries at this particular forum ?
> 
> To anyone of a pragmatic bent the meaning of 'good driver' is someone who is good at driving. This does not mean someone who is moral and/or obeys laws. On a similarly philosophical train of thought not everything legal is by definition also moral and the concepts are exclusive even if this is not ideal. They can move the car from A to B without making a nuisance of themselves for other road users or for pedestrians. I hope that answers your question.


 
Actually it was meant to be a rhetorical question.

I was suggesting thats there more to being a good driver than simply moving a car from A-B. For example having insurance, doesn't fall within your definition. If you have enough sense to know you don't need L plates you should have enough sense to realise its a legal requirement. If you don't want L plates. Do your test. It is not showing good judgement to drive unlicenced, uninsured etc. Driving on the road, being a good driver is also about responsibility and good judgment. L plates are meant to be temporary while your leanring. Not a means to avoid doing the test.


----------



## aircobra19 (13 Jun 2008)

uiop said:


> I....I dont' see it as a rhetorical question requiring no response when you ''quote'" me. .


 
But I didn't quote you...



uiop said:


> I also do not see how lecturing and moralising with people based upon some form of incredible speculation in any way furthers the aims of answering the original question posed by this thread. Perhaps you need a soapbox or a pulpit.


 
You mean like a forum? Great idea. I LIKE it....Hang on a minute...


----------



## rmelly (13 Jun 2008)

> This is getting childish. You put the words "good driver" in quotes.


 
You used the term when you clearly don't understand what it means. Can you even drive?


----------



## rmelly (13 Jun 2008)

Whatever, Walter.


----------



## aircobra19 (13 Jun 2008)

uiop said:


> This is getting childish. You put the words "good driver" in quotes.


 
Ah I see. I did it for emphasis. Usually to quote on a forum means using quote tags. Which I didn't. Hence the confusion. I see what you mean. Your defination of a _*good driver *_is of very narrow scope, and not correct in the context of driving legally on a road. 



uiop said:


> 'You mean like a forum?' is meaningless. What I said has nothing to do with your estimation of what I mean. However it does have everything to do with best conduct within a forum. I pointed out my estimation of whether this behaviour furthers the aims of answering the original question posed by this thread. The answer I believe is a resounding NO.


 
That also was intended as a rhetorical question.

I wasn't aware of a one question one answer rule on these forums. I thought related discussions were allowed. 
The suggestion was made that enforcing these rules was not that important. That would seem to be related. 
You asked a different question to the original poster, and haven't answered his question either.

The original question would seem to have been answered by the third post in. After that its just the usual chat.


----------



## aircobra19 (13 Jun 2008)

With repect needing L plates is driving 101. You said you knew good drivers who didn't use L plates. I disagree thats a good driver. Hardly a million miles, or huge leap in logic.  Its also a different topic than being unaccompanied. though not a a million miles away either. IMO.


----------



## rmelly (14 Jun 2008)

The point of L plates is to notify other road users that the driver in question hasn't got a full licence, and that they should proceed accordingly - nothing to do with magical powers I'm afraid.


----------



## aircobra19 (14 Jun 2008)

Other than the magical powers of being legal or not legal on the road. And  allowing other drivers to stay well clear. Pointless? Only if you care less about those things.


----------



## aircobra19 (14 Jun 2008)

A unlicenced driver is illegal and uninsured to drive. End of story.


----------



## rmelly (14 Jun 2008)

I wonder if people who have such a cavalier attitude to L plates also treat other road regulations with equal disdain, whether it is insurance, NCT, Tax, drink driving, mobile phone usage etc.


----------



## crazyhorse (16 Jun 2008)

rmelly said:


> is good enough, but hasn't? Given that waiting lists have fallen drastically, what's their excuse for not having a full licence?


 

Waiting lists have unfortunately not fallen drastically. 
I applied for the test in Dublin in early January, and took the test in mid May, a waiting period of just over 4 months. Reapplied the day after failing the test. Still waiting to get a response about a test appointment, and  read over the weekend that those on second provisionals are being prioritised.    Believe me, I would love to be able to take the test asap and get my full licence, but it is just not facilitated sufficiently.


----------



## Graham_07 (16 Jun 2008)

There are many good drivers with provisional licences. There are equally many holders of full licences who are appalling drivers. Since the law cannot provide for degress of good driving among the licensed population, the only thing which serves to visibly identify to the driving public ( and the authorities) those not fully licensed to drive unaccompanied is the L plate. Any provisional license holder not displaying an L plate or being accompanied by a qualified driver of at least 2 years standing is breaking the law. No ifs, buts or ands about it. To what extent that law will be policed remains to be seen...especially following the answers on this thread.


----------



## aircobra19 (16 Jun 2008)

I think they should have addressed the waiting lists better before introducing this. 

The Guards should be able to spot people of any licence type driving like a muppet and pull them. But theres so little presence and thus enforcement, that people can pretty drive as they want.


----------



## Graham_07 (16 Jun 2008)

As long as the roads don't end up like this .


----------



## rmelly (16 Jun 2008)

crazyhorse said:


> Believe me, I would love to be able to take the test asap and get my full licence, but it is just not facilitated sufficiently.


 
Not being smart, but you failed within last 2 months - what makes you think you'd pass if you sat it tomorrow?



> I think they should have addressed the waiting lists better before introducing this.


 
They have - average waiting time between 6 and 14 weeks depending on the centre, and plenty of people are still not turning up. This means someone has the opportunity to do at least 3 tests in space of a year. When I applied I was waiting almost a year.


----------



## crazyhorse (16 Jun 2008)

rmelly said:


> Not being smart, but you failed within last 2 months - what makes you think you'd pass if you sat it tomorrow?
> 
> Taking lessons and practicing in the interim, I failed by one fault. The tester himself even told me to reapply asap before I had the chance to pick up bad habits....
> 
> ...


 

Unfortunately I am not one of these "someones"
The test itself is fundamentally flawed, incorporating items such as reversing around the corner(manouevre I am highly unlikely to ever use again other than in a test situation).  How to parallel park, how to drive on a motorway etc would be much more beneficial. I cannot understand that having never driven on a motorway as a learner driver that suddenly, by passing a test which does not incorporate this, I am automatically qualified to do so.


----------



## shesells (16 Jun 2008)

You reverse around a corner a lot more than you realise, almost everytime you reverse out of a parking space or driveway for starters.


----------



## aircobra19 (16 Jun 2008)

I think everyone accepts the test is far from ideal. Mainly its too easy and too subjective. That said its just a line in the sand you have to cross.


----------



## rmelly (16 Jun 2008)

uiop said:


> Some faults earned in this test have little bearing upon safety such as faulting someone for revving slightly too much on a hill start or when moving off. Revving creates a safeguard against a cut out of the engine. Its better to over rev than under rev. Im sure someone will disagree with me and bite my head off for daring to have a view such as this . So what if it damages a car , thats the owner of the cars problem. Skills such as observation and anticipation on the road are most important imo.


 
You don't fail a test for over-revving, however being able to properly judge the clutch bite point is a bare minimal skill I'd expect in a driver - if you can't then other road users run the risk of you rolling back into them when attempting a hillstart, or the driver cutting out on startup or moving off from lights etc - as such it can be a safety issue.



> Its better to over rev than under rev.


 
I'd have said it's best to get it *right*. Why settle for second best?


----------



## aircobra19 (16 Jun 2008)

If someone is over revving slightly no one would even notice. Probably 99% of drivers do this. It most be pretty excessive for someone else to notice.


----------



## mercman (16 Jun 2008)

Alastairdick's comments are wonderful ! In fairness to L drivers they are entitled to learn how to drive. I certainly would prefer to be behind an L driver than behind a driver that suffers from Road Rage. How else are they supposed to learn how to drive. There are speed limits out there and there is little point in roaring and shouting and blaming learners. Tell me I suppose you were a natural and have never made a mistake whilst driving. 'Let he without Sin cast the first stone'


----------



## aircobra19 (16 Jun 2008)

I'm confused. Is the road rage driver in front or behind. If in front, are they then not also the L driver. If the problem is the speed limit, the driver must be holding up those behind? and on the M50? So an L driver on the M50 holding up other drivers is that the problem mercman?


----------



## mercman (17 Jun 2008)

Yes I agree wholeheartedly that some L drivers can be a right pain, but everybody is entitled to practice and learn. It's the only way that drivers will get the feel of the road and traffic. But to cast aspersions against all learners is a little rich don't you think.


----------



## aircobra19 (17 Jun 2008)

He was talking about all of the ones on the M50. Which none of them should be on.


----------



## Graham_07 (17 Jun 2008)

An interesting update [broken link removed]


----------



## chum (18 Jun 2008)

L drivers are responsible for 25% of road accidents, the balance caused by ?


----------



## rmelly (18 Jun 2008)

chum said:


> L drivers are responsible for 25% of road accidents, the balance caused by ?


 
Which is disproportionate given that they don't account for 25% of all road users.


----------



## aircobra19 (18 Jun 2008)

chum said:


> L drivers are responsible for 25% of road accidents, the balance caused by ?


 
Fix the problem not the blame.


----------

