Opinions please?

[Whickerman]

A law is being enforced as of monday next here in Ireland. Does the same situation apply in the UK, and if not, would it be tolerated...?

The law is that people on provisional driving licences must be accompanied whilst driving by a person who has held a full licence for 2 years. No shocks there. But the person with the full licence will now be subject to being breathalysed. Therefore, if you are a passenger in a car being driven by a learner, if you've had more than a pint and are stopped by the police you will automatically lose your licence for two years - the thought being that you are the one in control of the vehicle.

I'd be interested in your opinions on this...thanks

[sara3]

I say, rightly so!

a non-driver and someone over the limit would have limited control of a car.

[stokemaveric]

and so it should be....would you go out with a driving instructor if he was over the limit?

[naomi24]

Sounds about right to me. The qualified driver must have his wits about him, and although one pint isn't a lot, the line has to be drawn at a very low limit.

[Ethel]

That is the law in the UK.

Let's get this quite clear - you can be a passenger in a car driven by a learner and unconscious through drink. There is nothing illegal about that.

However, the supervising passenger must be legally able to drive - full licence, insured to drive that car and not over the drink drive limit.

The supervising passenger MUST NOT use a mobile phone (unless it is hands free) whilst the engine is running either.

Other Restrictions

When you are supervising a learner driver, you have the same legal responsibilities as if you were driving. For example, the drink drive laws and the ban on using mobile phone applies to anyone who is supervising a learner - you are deemed to be in control of the vehicle.

[Ethel]

Forgot the link:


http://www.helpingldrivers.com/law/supervisor. htm

[Oneeyedvic]

In the UK, the accompanying driver must be over the age of 21 and must have held (and still hold) a full licence, in the relevant vehicle category, for three years.

It seems that in the UK that you do need to be under the limit already: http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2004/1/23/118707 .html



Interestingly, in Tayside, in seems that police have caught people for using their mobile whilst supervising a learner: http://www.tayside.police.uk/newsarchiveitem.p hp?id=1169&mon=11&year=2007


So it appears we are stricter than Ireland

[THECORBYLOON]

Ethel I think I'm correct in saying the supervisor does NOT need to be insured to drive the car but I'll have a look for some legal stuff to back that up.

[Ethel]

Corby - of course he must be. He must be able to drive the car.

The supervising driver must

* be at least 21 years old
* have a full driving licence (for the type of vehicle they are supervising in - manual or automatic), which must have been held for a minimum of three years.
* be insured to drive the vehicle

From my link in the previous thread

[THECORBYLOON]

You say "of course" but on the direct.gov site it says "Learners driving a car MUST hold a valid provisional licence. They MUST be supervised by someone at least 21 years old who holds a full EC/EEA licence for that type of car (automatic or manual) and has held one for at least three years."

Nothing about the supervisor needing insurance.

[Whickerman]

That's interesting stuff - thanks.

Not sure what the situation there is, but here (daftly) you can have unlimited numbers of provisional licences if you continue to fail the test.

So I assume if the person supervising (on, say, a long trip) falls asleep, the driver can be prosecuted for not having supervision?

In practice, is this policed?

[Oneeyedvic]

Yes whickerman, I believe that they can be prosecuted for falling asleep - they are there as the 'responsible' party - thus no alcohol, nop using a mobile etc.

[888sally888]

I think that this is very sensible. I go out driving with my learner daughter and you have to be alert at all times!

[Ethel]

As supervising drivers can be prosecuted for using a mobile phone - as they are not in a position to properly supervise the learner - falling asleep is a definite no no.

Since 2003, 21 people supervising learner drivers have been caught using their mobile phones

http://www.tayside.police.uk/newsarchiveitem.p hp?id=1169&mon=11&year=2007

If a learner is stopped by the police for any reason, both the learner and the supervising driver are given producers - they must both produce the relevant documents.

If the learner breaks the law the supervising driver can also be prosecuted for aiding and abetting.

Rubie v Faulkner (1940) learner committed a dangerous manoeuvre, superviser prosecuted for aid and abet by omission (failing to act)

It's old law but still relevant and referred to in court today.

[New Judge]

I�m with Corby, on this one, Ethel.

Whilst the law certainly does say that supervisors must be in a position to properly supervise (that is, among other things, not drunk and not on the phone) it does not say that they have to be in a position to drive. I can therefore see no necessity for them to be insured. Nothing in the Road Traffic Acts I have quickly scanned, or in the Highway Code suggests this.

The supervisor most certainly does not have the same legal responsibilities as the driver. The driver is responsible for complying with the law and is expected, even as a learner, to have a grasp of the various responsibilities he has. The supervisor is not responsible for ensuring the driver is insured or that he does not speed. If he was, all prosecutions for these offences committed by supervised drivers would be accompanied by a similar prosecution against the supervisor � and they are not. Similarly, In the event of an accident any claims would be made against the driver, not the supervisor.

I don�t know where RoSPA got its information from when they compiled the article to which you provided a link. Their article seemed to cover a situation where the learner driver was driving a car owned by the supervisor:

�be insured to drive the vehicle and to have placed the learner driver on the insurance policy�

Unless he was already a policy holder in respect of the vehicle he would be in no position to do such a thing.

Much of their article seems to be sound advice rather than mandate:

(...�The supervising driver must ensure that the car is in a safe and legal condition, including being properly licensed, taxed and MOT'd.).

These responsibilities are the driver's and they cannot be transferred to supervisors.

[Ethel]

Case law is used:

Clark v Clark 1950 SLT (Sh Ct) 68

the supervisor "must participate in the driving", "must be in a position in or on the vehicle to be able to take control of it if necessary", and "may in certain circumstances be 'in charge' of the vehicle and be liable to be charged with an appropriate offence contrary to the RTA 1988, ss4(2) or 5(1)(b)"

[New Judge]

Quite so, Ethel, the case law you refer to covers a situation where a supervisor may be prosecuted for being drunk (the Sections of the RTA referred to relate to driving or being in charge whilst unfit through drink or drugs). I have not disagreed with this aspect. It is obvious that in order to supervise one must be in a fit condition to do so.

However, in order to supervise somebody driving (unless you are a professional instructor where entirely different rules apply) you do not have to be insured to drive the vehicle � and that was the issue Corby raised.

Of course the supervisor is given an HORT1 when stopped whilst supervising. He has to produce his full licence. If he does not do so the learner driver will be prosecuted for driving unsupervised and the supervisor for failing to produce. However, he will not be asked to produce an insurance certificate as he has no obligation to have one.

Apart from the parent/child type of situation where the child may be driving the parent�s car as they learn to drive, I doubt that very few, if any, people supervising a learner would be specifically insured to drive the vehicle. There is no legal requirement for it. It would take a brave CPS lawyer to recommended prosecution, and an even braver Bench (and Legal Advisor) to convict a supervisor for having no insurance on the basis of the case law you quoted.

Yes, it is quite true the supervisor may be called upon to �take control if necessary�. But so might a fourteen year old passenger being carried in the front seat when the driver suffers a heart attack. This does not mean he has to be insured.