Can I drive on Provisional with my Bf in the passenger seat??

sebdangerfield

!!!!!! wrote: »

I believe that he needs to be on the insurance as well.

Beat me to it! He should also be insured on the car.

bob_a_builder

Don't think passenger needs to be insured, unless you have a link to the contrary

see
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992864.htm#17#

and page 3 of
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/learners.pdf

System

That's why I only thought it was needed. In fact it is only required if the supervising driver wishes/needs to drive the car.

As the supervising driver in this case is the one that should be having driving lessons then he won't be driving

Kavanne

rofl !!!!!!, clever. maybe i'll get him a few refresher lessons but i've got a feeling i'll be good at it so hopefully he won't need to worry.

sebdangerfield

There is no specific law that states supervisors of learners must be insured.

However, there is one acceptable minimum standard of driving, all drivers, including learners must observe it; if not, they commit an offence of carelass driving. A supervisor of a learner is not required to teach the learner but to supervise them. That means doing whatever might be;

Reasonably expected to prevent the learner driver from acting carelessly or endagering others (see Rubie v Faulkner [1940]) The duty includes being in a position to take control of the vehicle in an emergency. If the supervisor is not able to do this, either because of his physical state or of their (sic) being out of the vehicle (giving directions), the condition will not have been fulfilled.

Apply this to the obvious parts of the RTA and we can easily see that If a supervisor does interveen then they are deemed as driving the vehicle as the this action would easily fit into the common acceptance of what is driving e.g being in control of the movement and progress of the vehicle.

Looking at the above, it's easy to see why I'd reccomend the OP's partner having insurance too. As is the intricacy of English law, just because something doesn't say 'don't' it doesn't mean 'do'. Should something happen, there could be a whole heap of issues for both of you.

mdg370

You also need to make sure you have catagory B on your provisional licence Catagory A is motorcycle.

waynedance

You asked "Can I drive on Provisional with my Bf in the passenger seat?"

Yes, enough said.

Have fun.

PasturesNew

Anybody sitting in the passenger seat must also be fit to drive .... so not over the drink driving limit. Just in case he convinces you it's a great idea to drive him to/from the pub and have 2-3 pints.

rev_henry

sebdangerfield wrote: »

There is no specific law that states supervisors of learners must be insured.

However, there is one acceptable minimum standard of driving, all drivers, including learners must observe it; if not, they commit an offence of carelass driving. A supervisor of a learner is not required to teach the learner but to supervise them. That means doing whatever might be;



Apply this to the obvious parts of the RTA and we can easily see that If a supervisor does interveen then they are deemed as driving the vehicle as the this action would easily fit into the common acceptance of what is driving e.g being in control of the movement and progress of the vehicle.

Looking at the above, it's easy to see why I'd reccomend the OP's partner having insurance too. As is the intricacy of English law, just because something doesn't say 'don't' it doesn't mean 'do'. Should something happen, there could be a whole heap of issues for both of you.

So if the supervisor has to take control of the vehicle then you're saying he should therefore be insured to drive it? However the wording of what you said refers to emergencies only. In a genuine emergency, the insurance policy on the car covers ANY driver regardless of whether he's a named driver or not. I'm fairly sure of this, but happy to be corrected. So in that way the supervisor does not need to be a named driver on the car policy.

sebdangerfield

I didn't say he needs to be, I just said he should be for the fact that it can cause many problems should anything happen. We're all too aware of the way some authorities can decline to apply common sense in situations such as this. It's just simple common sense.