I am pretty sure that as long as your AUS national driving licence conforms to the requirements of 1968 Convention (which it probably does) you legally do not need an IDP. The countries who signed the convention must recognize national driving licences without need for IDP.

In practice though, as others have said, is good to have. I don't think BiB can legally "do you" for not having IDP, but they can still give you a lot hassle.

__________________
Motorcycle Rentals in Malaga

Greetings Rob

If you are planning to travel through France there are a few gotcha's that you may not be aware of. (Apologies if you do)

- Blood alcohol test kits
- GPS speed camera locations
- Reflective clothing

This AA article has a good summary of all the rules

Driving in France, new laws 2015 | AA

I knew about the first two items I only discovered about the third from the AA article.

Are these rules actively enforced? I'd be interested in hearing from somebody who actually lives there.

Regards

IanJ

__________________
Always have plan B, and maybe plan C
www.travelswithkitty.com

Blood alcohol test has been done away with as an obligatory requirement!

Keep a hi-vis vest & triangle handy though

Another angle on International Drivers Permits
In the process of buying some travel insurance I have been reading customer reviews of various policies
A young Aussie involved in a serious motorcycle accident in Bali reported that his insurance company rejected his claim because the rider did not have an IDP
Travel Insurance companies appear to have a poor reputation when it comes to paying claims and this may be another "out" worth considering when deciding whether to spend $40 on an IDP

Uh, that sounds like one of those urban myths that falls into the category of 'I heard it from a friend of a friend...'

An IDP is not a driver licence. It is merely a translation of the underlying national driver licence upon which it is based (in this case, an Australian driver licence) into multiple other languages, presented in an internationally agreed-upon format.

The IDP itself conveys no driving privileges. The underlying national licence is the actual driver licence, and must be valid and, if requested by authorities, presented along with the IDP.

In the case you cited, if the rider had a valid national (Australian) driver licence, it would make no difference whatsoever whether or not they had an IDP. But, if they had an IDP and the underlying national licence upon which the IDP was issued was no longer valid - for example, expired, suspended, or not valid for the type of vehicle being operated - then having an IDP makes no difference at all.

Michael

While I can't verify the facts of the scenario described I do believe insurance companies are in the business of making money and minimising payouts is key means of maximising profits

If you are required to hold both a valid drivers licence and an IDP by the government of the country where the motorcycle is being ridden and you don't have a current IDP and have an accident I suspect your insurance company will most likely refuse a claim if this can in any way be interpreted as an exclusion of cover as stated in the PDS for the policy

I raised this issue not to spread "urban myths" but as a legitimate possibility that should be given consideration

As a Victorian it is worthwhile having an IDP simply because my licence does not adequately identify me as being licenced rider.

It states my licence type as being "car" and "R". Car is self explanatory but how many international police officers will be able to translate "R" as meaning I am a licenced morocycle "R"ider?

By comparison, the IDP clearly identifies whether or not you are licenced to ride a motorcycle.

In addition, thrice in the last 2 years I have been requested to show my licence (once each in Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines), and each time when I showed them my Vic licence they handed it back and said no, I want to see the IDP.

__________________
Garry from Oz - powered by Burgman

Hello Rob:

I don't mean to sound like I am giving you a hard time (that is not my intention at all), but, I think you are missing the point.

An IDP is nothing more than a translation into multiple languages of a driver licence. By itself, it confers no privileges. An IDP exists for the sole purpose of enabling people in foreign countries to see what type of vehicle you are allowed to drive according to your home country driver licence, and to see that information in about 6 different languages. An IDP has no validity in the home country of the holder.

IDPs were first issued in 1926. Today, they are about as useful as traveller's cheques, which is to say that yes, IDPs still exist, and yes, if you want to be very very careful when travelling in strange and exotic countries, you should probably carry one. I carry one, because I travel in a lot of very exotic countries (about 60 different ones a year before I retired in 2013, now, only about 15 different ones each year). But, the last time I actually needed to pull it out and present it was in Angola back in 1990.

The main point - so far as the insurance issue is concerned - is that without an underlying national licence (which one is, in theory, obligated to present for inspection along with the IDP), the IDP is worthless.

For that reason, I have a very hard time believing that an insurance company from the rider's home country would refuse to honour a claim from a person who was operating a motor vehicle while possessing a valid national driver licence from their home country. It's simply not an issue for the insurance company... the only issue for them is whether the driver was properly licenced to begin with, which implies the underlying national licence, not the IDP.

This Wikipedia page explains the whole thing in great detail: Click Here.

Michael