Supervising learner driver

Aretnap

Quentin wrote: »

Who was on hand to intervene should the manoeuvre go wrong - confident drivers muck up parallel parking but know at what point to abort before scraping, a learner has a lot on their plate without having that to consider.

It's at panic times that the brake gets mixed up with the accelerator.

Be serious. If the learner mistakes the accelerator for the brake, in a non-dual controlled car, what's the supervisor going to do about that?

Yes it was a breach of the law, but in practical terms the mum was probably more use outside the car than she would have been inside it.

Aretnap

Paradigm wrote: »

Sadly the Police won't see it that way if the neighbour decides to inform them... such is life

If something like this were reported by a random member of the public I'm fairly sure the police response would be to do nothing, or at most to have a word with the mum and/or son and tell them not to do it again. It's rare enough for them to take action over real instances of bad driving reported by MoPs - I really can't see anyone being prosecuted over this.

Ectophile

welshjenni wrote: »

How would I intervene from inside the car other than grabbing the wheel? He was moving at a snail pace and my view of the parked cars (one of which is also mine) was much better from outside than inside.

By yanking on the handbrake. That would be much safer than grabbing the steering wheel.

Edit: but only at low speeds!

vaio

with a close parking manoeuvre and a brake/throttle mix up I be surprised if the supervising driver could even think about grabbing handbrake let alone actually do it before the damage was done

More generally, handbrake use at higher speeds is much more exciting/entertaining than at low speeds (but probably not a good idea for people who struggle to park)

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Aretnap wrote: »

The actual regulations say


There doesn't seem to be a requirement for the supervisor to sit in any particular seat.

how can you be in charge of a motor vehicle if you not sat in a vital area of the vehicle to supervise?

this is why under your license terms if you supervise you are the one deemed to be in control and thus in charge (of a motor vehicle).

go to bottom of the page other restrictions!

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

paddedjohn

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

you need to be inside the car or the insurance won't pay out

It would to a third party.

vaio

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

........this is why under your license terms if you supervise you are the one deemed to be in control and thus in charge (of a motor vehicle)...........

and are liable for any offences/incidents that happen? not allowed to use a mobile? or be drunk?

But don't need to be insured, seems confusing to me how you can be in charge & control without insurance

Hintza

From a practical point of view a driver needs to learn the dimensions of the car and park it themselves. They will get no "outside" help in the test and such the OP is not really going the learners any favours.

Aretnap

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

how can you be in charge of a motor vehicle if you not sat in a vital area of the vehicle to supervise?

this is why under your license terms if you supervise you are the one deemed to be in control and thus in charge (of a motor vehicle).

go to bottom of the page other restrictions!

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

Can you back any of that up with a link to an actual law rather than a random website?

It's a fallacy to say that the supervisor has the same legal responsibilities as the driver. In the case of mobile phones there's a specific clause in the legislation which makes it illegal to supervise a learner while using one - there'd be no need for that clause if the supervisor was automatically treated as if he was driving. I believe some drunk supervisors have been prosecuted for being drunk in charge, but not for drink driving. And there are plenty of requirements on the driver which quite clearly don't apply to the supervisor. The driver must be "in such a position that he [can]have proper control of the vehicle" for example - fancy driving a car from the passenger seat and explaining to a cop that you're in a position to have proper control over it? Similarly there appears to be no requirement for the supervisor to be insured to drive the vehicle, though it's probably a good idea. And if the car goes over the speed limit it's the driver who gets the points, not the supervisor.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

vaio wrote: »

and are liable for any offences/incidents that happen? not allowed to use a mobile? or be drunk?

But don't need to be insured, seems confusing to me how you can be in charge & control without insurance

they are two separate offences.

you will be charged for drunk in charge.

using a mobile phone whilst in charge.

you need insurance to DRIVE, not be in charge although, you commit an offence of driving whithout insurance if you were to over from the learner even just by grabbing the steering wheel if you not covered by your own or insured on the vehicle being used.

you are also responsible for tires condition MOT and VED to be current on the vehicle if you use your own car.