Supervising a learner driver

Herzlos

pothole50 wrote: »

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.

I mean that from the back seat, the supervisor can't see much of what's going on, so loses the opportunity to go "Woah! stop!" or respond properly if the driver asks a question about something "Do I just go round that?" "What does that sign mean?" and so on.

If the supervisor is pretty much just there to check the box then they'd be OK in the back, but I certainly wouldn't do it.

Ebe_Scrooge

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

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

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

Interesting. I know "the law" doesn't automatically mean that no MOT = No Insurance. But if the terms of the particular policy state that it must have a valid MOT ??? You read the terms & conditions, you accept them. If you don't like it, go to a different provider.

Similarly, if the insurance company state they will only cover a learner whilst the supervisor is in the front passenger seat, so be it. Take it or leave it. I could form my own company that only insures red cars - I might not get much business, but that's my choice.

I'm not arguing with you ( in particular, the MOT thing has been done to death on here many times ), but ultimately if you don't like the T&C's of the insurance company, go elsewhere to find a better deal.

I'm interested in how the law and the insurance company's T&C's work together - does one take precedence over the other ?

Astronaughtwannabe

Well the insurer's T&Cs certainly doesn't hold supremacy over the law.

I would think that third parties have statutory rights and it wouldn't matter what baloney an insurer writes into the contract if it is designed to take away those rights.