You cannot use your mobile whilst supervising a learner!!
I did not know that - did you?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10834271
Last edited by: Pugugly on Mon 2 Aug 10 at 10:19
|
|
I knew the supervising driver was in charge, but I admit I hadnt thought it through to its logical legal conclusion, re phones and glasses.
|
But no apparent requirement to be in the car, it seems? eg you could be supervising a parking or reversing manoeuvre by standing on the pavement.
Interesting that there is no requirement to have insurance, unless you actually drive the vehicle yourself at some point.
|
>>>Interesting that there is no requirement to have insurance, unless you actually drive the vehicle yourself at some point.<<<<
So what happens when the driver does as he is 'instructed' (against his better judgement), can the supervising driver be sucessfully prosecuted as a result of an accident. Who would the claim by a third party be against? Who would pay out?
A bit obscure but not totally impossible! Particularly if there are independent witnesses in the car.
|
|
I understood it is always the drivers responsibility even if they are learning.
|
So what happens when the driver does as he is 'instructed' (against his better judgement),
>> can the supervising driver be sucessfully prosecuted as a result of an accident. Who would
>> the claim by a third party be against? Who would pay out?
"He told me to do it" is not, and never has been, a legal defence.
|
>>>"He told me to do it" is not, and never has been, a legal defence. <<<<
I believe it is under at least 2 circumstances
1. direction of a police officer (in uniform?)
2. under duress, in fear of life
any others?
But that is a red herring - in the circumstances I outlined, we are not talking of defence of driver, we are talking of possibly civil culpability on the part of the 'instructor'.
|
>> But that is a red herring - in the circumstances I outlined, we are not
>> talking of defence of driver, we are talking of possibly civil culpability on the part
>> of the 'instructor'.
No because liability lies with the driver. The driver should not do anything dangerous or illegal even if the "instructor" suggests it. Hence the "he told me to do it" is not a get out clause.
|
>>Hence the "he told me to do it" is not a get out clause.<<<
I am not talking about a get out clause for the driver, I am talking about liability falling on the instructor.
Take for example the case where the driver is a man of straw (or dead), does the civil liability fall on the 'instructor'. In which case could the instructor have any personal liability?
IIRC a passenger was prosecuted in a DD case where it was 'his' car.
Last edited by: pmh on Mon 2 Aug 10 at 16:12
|
>> I am not talking about a get out clause for the driver, I am talking
>> about liability falling on the instructor.
And I am telling you it doesent. The driver is wholly responsible for his actions. This does not preclude the "instructor" from being guilty as well.
For example, the learner driver jumps a red light and kills a child in a pushchair.
The driver gets jail time for death by dangerous, and cops 100% full civil liability.
if the instructor was drunk he too could get the same, but the driver does not get off because the instructor was drunk.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 2 Aug 10 at 16:29
|
...IIRC a passenger was prosecuted in a DD case where it was 'his' car...
Certainly was, a businessman and his girlfriend.
Both been on the lash at a horse racing meeting, and he allowed her to drive his Jag home.
One fatal RTC later, and they are both in prison.
There's also the offence of 'allowing to be carried' - getting into the passenger seat of a car which you knew, or suspected, was stolen.
As regards the defence of duress, I've never seen it used successfully.
It is regularly used in mitigation, as in:
"She wouldn't have tried to take those drugs into the prison, your honour, were it not for some nasty men on her estate who threatened dire things if she didn't."
|
>>>> As regards the defence of duress, I've never seen it used successfully.
>>
>> >>
Duress is a defence under criminal law, but usually carries some lesser degree of culpability. It corresponds to "undue influence", a defence under civil law.
|
>> >>>"He told me to do it" is not, and never has been, a legal defence.
>> <<<<
>>
>> I believe it is under at least 2 circumstances
SQ
This is another set of circumstances. The Learner is considered NOT TO KNOW what they must or must not do, why they must be supervised. The supervisor is there because they should know what to do.
It is a case of "I was told to so I did" is very likely to work as a defense.
I supervised two several years ago (not at the same time) and approached it as if I was the driver and hence responsible. So when daughter touched a kerb and chipped one of SWMBOs alloys it WAS my fault.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 3 Aug 10 at 10:42
|
>>It is illegal to receive any payment for accompanying a learner driver, unless you are an Approved Driving Instructor and hold the ADI certificate from the Driving Standards Agency.
>>
>>
From offspring ? - fat chance.
|
>> you are deemed to be in control of the vehicle
This sums it up, with all the attendant mobile phone / drink drive / eyesight legislation that goes with it.
Interestingly, I understand that from 1 May 2010 any driver who holds grandfather rights to drive class C1 and also class E (goods vehicles up to 7500kg MAM and also large trailers, ie the bigger caravans etc) - that is, any driver who passed their car test before 1997 - is no longer allowed to supervise a learner in these classes of vehicles. Sneaky rule change there.
Last edited by: Dave_TD {P} on Mon 2 Aug 10 at 11:02
|
|
We live quite near a test centre so we see learner drivers all day. I've lost count the number of times I've seen instructors on their phones. I thought it was legal. Obviously not. I suppose if they are on the phone they cannot be concentrating on their pupils performance or skills.
|
I didn't know about the removal of rights to supervise where the rights are on a licence automatically.
A teetotal acquaintance of mine was in the habit of driving her boyfriend's car when he was drunk when she had not passed her test. Moreover, she had no L plates, and I doubt very much whether the insurer knew. Thankfully the situation is now long-since regularised.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Mon 2 Aug 10 at 11:53
|
|
Was rather bemused by this report on the news this morning. Memories (not that distant) of supervising my daughters' early attempts at driving MY CAR are that you needed to be pretty focused on the job of supervising.....it wouldn't have occurred to me that it might be OK to have a sleep, or maybe leave my glasses at home so that I couldn't actually see what was going on, or catch up on some texting.....
|
|
French driving instructors always seem to be on their mobiles, and usually have a fag going as well.
|
>> French driving instructors always seem to be on their mobiles, and usually have a fag
>> going as well.
>>
But the smoke from a Gauloise prevents the tears forming in their eyes as a result of the string of onions round the neck :)
improved vision = improved awareness
|
|
Come to think of it, my driving instructor used to smoke throughout my lessons. Didn't stop him stamping on the dual control brake and stalling the Triumph Herald in some awkward place if he wanted to make a point...
|
|
In Germany you are not allowed to teach people to drive ad lib you have to be a registered driving school and it costs a fortune by the time you have passed your test perhaps its mored valued by the youth here than in the UK but judging by some of the accidents they have I sometimes wonder.
|
Yoofs in UK do not need licences or insurance...............they are too expensive.
Fines for no licence or insurance are cheaper than the premiums. Fine £200 - TPF&T for teenager £2000
|
...fines cheaper than insurance...
True, unfortunately.
A friend of mine's daughter has just started driving lessons.
She's had to be encouraged to take to the wheel, and is either 19 or 20-years-old.
Her premium is a mere £600 - being a girl and a couple of years older than 17 makes a big difference.
I think she's worried, bless her, about costing her dad so much money and she has already researched the Pass Plus training course and its impact on premiums.
If all goes to plan, her first premium as a qualified driver should be no more than £500.
|
>> If all goes to plan, her first premium as a qualified driver should be no
>> more than £500.
Err No. The premium goes UP when they pass the driving test. Why? because they are no longer supervised.
|
...Err No. The premium goes UP...
That's what I thought, which is why I posted the information.
Neither the dad nor the daughter are stupid, so I am content to take what they say as genuine.
|
|
well lets see if the plan works.
|
Supervising learnersv - facts you may not know! - L'escargot
