Any provisional drivers caught yet?

Have to be honest here, I'm driving 8 years and have never learnt to parallel park and have never reversed into a parking space/driveway.
 
An enterprising woman in Castleisland, Co. Kerry is hiring herself out to sit with provisional drivers so they can still drive ( she has full licence).
 
very good - does she call over to the person needing to be accompanied (e.g. by bike or taxi), or are they expected to drive to her? (which would defeat the porpose...). One of those foldup bikes would be handy for her.
 
Just to go back to the percentage of failed tests, I read in one of the posts above that it is about 40% overall. Does anyone know what is the failure rate in gov test centres vs. failure rate in private test centres?

Also, a friend was looking for a list of private test centres in Dublin. Any idea where I can find a list?

Thanks
 
I found all of the information I was looking for (including pass % rates for each of the driving test centres locations) on [broken link removed].
I am not able to find information on 'private test centres', though.
Anyone know where I should look?
 
shesells said:
You need to have a full licence for over TWO years. Not sure about the insurance thing,
Click to expand...

The accompanying person does need to be insured to drive the car. The reason for having the accompanying person is that they can take over the driving if required. This also means that they can't be over the legal limit - but there are some technical issues around this issue.
 
macnas said:
rmelly she would drive over?
Click to expand...

In whose car, her own? Then how does she get back to it? Taxi etc?

The service wouldn't be much use for people going to work, it would only work if they were returning home on the trip so she can get back to her car easily.
 
With respect to the licenced driver being over the limit, I heard of someone today who did get stopped and the licenced driver (not driving, accompanying learner) was breathalised. All was fine and above board - so technicalities didn't need to be tested. I never drink and drive, but if I was the licenced driver I might be a bit more relaxed and have maybe two :eek:

One to be aware of if you're accompanying someone else - doesn't come up as an issue for me, so maybe it's just because I haven't thought about it. I understand the logic of it, but I'd feel very hard done by getting done if I wasn't driving!
 
Peeete said:
The accompanying person does need to be insured to drive the car. The reason for having the accompanying person is that they can take over the driving if required.
Click to expand...
She could have open driving on her own policy, so she wouldn't necessarily need to be on the policy of the car being driven. This would only give her 3rd party cover, mind you - no comprehensive. She'd also need to make sure that her own insurers are covering her for this commercial activity.
 
Complainer said:
She could have open driving on her own policy, so she wouldn't necessarily need to be on the policy of the car being driven. This would only give her 3rd party cover, mind you - no comprehensive. She'd also need to make sure that her own insurers are covering her for this commercial activity.
Click to expand...

This is as I stated - she doesn't need to be on the cars policy but she must be covered to drive the vehicle. As you say, there may be commercial implicaions for insurance - it is one to be careful with
 
Last edited:
dem_syhp said:
With respect to the licenced driver being over the limit, I heard of someone today who did get stopped and the licenced driver (not driving, accompanying learner) was breathalised. All was fine and above board - so technicalities didn't need to be tested. I never drink and drive, but if I was the licenced driver I might be a bit more relaxed and have maybe two :eek:

One to be aware of if you're accompanying someone else - doesn't come up as an issue for me, so maybe it's just because I haven't thought about it. I understand the logic of it, but I'd feel very hard done by getting done if I wasn't driving!
Click to expand...

I believe the techincality affects the actual driver and not the accompanying person. As I understand it, if the accompanying person is over the limit then the driver is deemed to be unaccompanied - i.e. they have no capable person to drive (if the needs arise). It is then possible that the driver could be prosecuted. In that case the driver could claim ignorance of the drinking.... This is where the difficulty lies
 
Last edited:
Peeete said:
The accompanying person does need to be insured to drive the car. The reason for having the accompanying person is that they can take over the driving if required. This also means that they can't be over the legal limit - but there are some technical issues around this issue.
Click to expand...
what a stupid law......i wonder what brainbox civil servant thought that one up.
 
I'd have said it was actually reasonably clever, and that the alternative of not requiring it (or indeed the laws that governed provisionals up until now) were the stupid laws. Nice to see some 'joined-up thinking' for a change.

May of the posters (not necessarially you starlite68) on this and similar threads seem to misunderstand the concept of a provisional licence / learners permit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top