Supervising a learner driver

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Car_54 wrote: »

I agree completely with your thoughts on applying common sense rather than trying to explore the boundaries of the law.

However, on your first paragraph, which offences do you have in mind? Most of the common ones (speeding, careless or dangerous driving) apply specifically to "driving", which is the one thing that the supervisor definitely is not doing (especially if he's in the back seat).

The supervisor is in charge of the vehicle therefore he will be responsible for dangerous driving, careless driving and so on if they have failed to supervise properly.

Speeding is the responsibility of the driver only I believe (but a further Google suggests that there could be a charge of aiding and abetting - so from that I surmise that depending on the circumstances, the police might charge one or both of the learner and supervisor for careless or dangerous driving offences).

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

I did have an odd situation today where in a situation where a granny had parked extremely inconsiderately (but too old and wrinkly for me to have a word) where she parked in between two cars on the other side of the road making a tight slalom. I was waiting for her to totter out of the way alongside one of the cars on the other side of the road, so there was no way for an oncoming car to get through (there was barely a foot spare width for me to get the van through). As she finally wobbled out of the way, I moved forward, and as I did so a car turned into the road about 2 car lengths as I moved around the car so I was alongside granny's car. I expected it to halt (there was no way I could go back as there was a car behind) but it merrily continued on onto my side of the road where I was by this time too. I could see it was a learner but I still very deliberately continued forward to make sure that the supervisor was under no doubt that I was not going to be made to reverse when I was on my side of the road.

Basically the supervisor had not looked and had allowed the learner to proceed into oncoming traffic - so much for professional instruction. Learner looked baffled, supervisor did look anxious. I did leave tyres and tarmac in between us though.

Car_54

IanMSpencer wrote: »

The supervisor is in charge of the vehicle therefore he will be responsible for dangerous driving, careless driving and so on if they have failed to supervise properly.

On a quick Google search there does appear to be a widespread belief that "The supervisor is in charge ...". The AA even say "The law states that somebody supervising a learner driver is effectively in control of the car".

However, no-one is able to point to exactly which law., probably because it does not exist. The only case law I have found is Bentley v Mullen, from 1972, where the supervising driver, Mr Mullen , was charged and found guilty on appeal of aiding and abetting. The clear implication from that is that he was NOT in control, otherwise he would have been charged with the underlying offence.

Ebe_Scrooge

Interesting. When I was supervising my younger brother many years ago, I was told that the supervisor can't be drunk - dashing my hope of going out for a few beers and having him drive back :-)


According to the AA in this article http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-10834271 :


It's illegal to use a mobile phone.
You must wear glasses if you require them to drive yourself.
You're not allowed to fall asleep.
"The law states that somebody supervising a learner driver is effectively in control of the car".


By that reckoning, surely you would be prosecuted for "Drunk In Charge of a vehicle" ( which is subtly different from "Driving under the influence" ) ?


http://motoroffence.co.uk/offences/drink-driving/drunk-in-charge/?gclid=CPGWuPvk2sYCFc7HtAodFaQEMg


"
You may think that “sleeping it off” in your car is a perfectly legal thing to do but you could face a serious prosecution of being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. The good news is that the drunk in charge offence is not as serious as the related offence of drink driving and there is no mandatory 12 month ban although a ban it’s not out of the question for this offence. There is a fairly significant mandatory minimum penalty of 10 penalty points which, if convicted, could lead you to being banned under the “totting up” procedures if you have 3 points or more already on your licence.
To secure a conviction for being drunk in charge, the Crown must prove that you were in charge of a motor vehicle in a public place whilst unfit or over the prescribed limit of alcohol."


I'm no law expert, and I'm not saying any of this is gospel truth, just makes interesting reading.


My personal view would be - whatever the law says, common sense would dictate that the supervisor should be sober, not distracted, sitting in the front seat, ready to help the driver as best they can if an unforeseen situation occurs.


And to my mind, a baby is safer in the back anyway ( no matter who's driving ) - unless we're talking about a really old car that doesn't have seat belts in the back.

pothole50

I found some info here where it states the supervisor must be in the front seat.

http://www.gocompare.com/car-insurance/teaching-a-learner-to-drive/

To answer a few comments, my son in law is test ready, and has been driving the car for a while now as well as taking lessons. If it was thought he was not competent to drive Grandma would have a few words.

But back to my original question whether it be a baby or a bag of spuds up front, there does not appear to be a written law and a grey area, where supervising from the front or rear is concerned.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Car_54 wrote: »

On a quick Google search there does appear to be a widespread belief that "The supervisor is in charge ...". The AA even say "The law states that somebody supervising a learner driver is effectively in control of the car".

However, no-one is able to point to exactly which law., probably because it does not exist. The only case law I have found is Bentley v Mullen, from 1972, where the supervising driver, Mr Mullen , was charged and found guilty on appeal of aiding and abetting. The clear implication from that is that he was NOT in control, otherwise he would have been charged with the underlying offence.

There is a common sense view that given that an inexperienced driver must be supervised by an experienced driver, it is implicit that the experienced driver must in some way be responsible - it is the very meaning of supervision. It would then be perverse to suggest that they were not in some way legally responsible, so it probably does not need any further explicit legislation.

Nothing in magistrate's sentencing guidelines so we are obviously in rare territory.

Ebe_Scrooge

pothole50 wrote: »

I found some info here where it states the supervisor must be in the front seat.

http://www.gocompare.com/car-insurance/teaching-a-learner-to-drive/

To answer a few comments, my son in law is test ready, and has been driving the car for a while now as well as taking lessons. If it was thought he was not competent to drive Grandma would have a few words.

But back to my original question whether it be a baby or a bag of spuds up front, there does not appear to be a written law and a grey area, where supervising from the front or rear is concerned.

In that link you've provided it says "As a supervisor, however, you must always be in the front passenger seat." Seems fairly clear to me.


Even if that's not the law, I suspect that many insurance companies may insist on it and have it written into their policy - in which case, if the supervisor is in the back then you're not insured.

Herzlos

You're also going to have a pretty hard time actually supervising from the back; you won't be able to see what the driver is doing so well, or will you have great views of the road ahead or at junctions.

pothole50

But how many times at junctions have you taken advice from the passenger even though they give it "You are alright my side* you look anyway. Drivings not about controlling the car, thats the easy part, its more about anticipating the actions of other drivers and reading the road ahead.

Astronaughtwannabe

Ebe_Scrooge wrote: »

In that link you've provided it says "As a supervisor, however, you must always be in the front passenger seat." Seems fairly clear to me.


Even if that's not the law, I suspect that many insurance companies may insist on it and have it written into their policy - in which case, if the supervisor is in the back then you're not insured.

Hmmm, a bit like if your car isn't MOTd.

I suppose it depends upon yours and my definition of insured?