Learner driver pratice: is my supervising driver suitable for the task?

Simby

Adrian c.. yes got it in a nutshell

I subscribe to the view the op should be answered on topic and helped on that topic..I don’t believe sticking to the subject is not helping people , but if you do I respect that and am happy to respect your view.

If people want to raise other things in addition to answering the op ( at least include the topic) that is fine but many of the posts make no attempt to address the ops query at all but address a query that is not asked in isolation and when they don’t get any engagement from the op assume there is an issue.

I don’t believe calling posts imbecilic is ever justified and is not warranted in a friendly discussion thread nor is it in the spirit of MSE which is to my understanding about helping people.

Simby

Mercdriver wrote: »

Sorry, not sorry, but I think it would be irresponsible not to draw the OP's attention to the issue of insurance. Do you know of a car hire company that allows Learner drivers to drive their cars? Pray tell us which ones, that would be useful information.

Perhaps the OP doesn't care about the possible ramifications for their friend, I don't know, I don't know the OP. If she does know the ramifications and is driving vehicles without the knowledge of the car's legal owner/keeper, then that is an extremely serious issue.

Apologies it wasn’t’ clear if you think calling someone’s posts imbecilic is acceptable . I think it is as unacceptable as theft, driving without insurance and has no place in society, there is never an excuse to use such a derogatory word, which is deeply upsetting and is a word that is upsetting and uncalled for when people are having a friendly discussion.

The issue is many posters make no attempt to address the ops question at all... but to answer your question the op did not say they were using a hire car . it could have been the ops car, the ops families car, the friends dads car ... many possibilities .. I believe the op only gave the hire car info to highlight her friends lack of confidence not to imply they were using a hire car. Not to ask for how to insure someone else’s hire car.

When I learnt to drive my parents insured me on one of their cars and whichever of them was supervising got into that car... it never occurred to anyone a learner would be insured on multiple cars , so it never occurred to me that the friend would be supervising in anything other then an insured car. Most people are law abiding and I chose to assume they are until proof is otherwise given.

Anyway I hope the op resolves their query

AdrianC

Simby wrote: »

The issue is many posters make no attempt to address the ops question at all... but to answer your question the op did not say they were using a hire car . it could have been the ops car, the ops families car, the friends dads car ... many possibilities .. I believe the op only gave the hire car info to highlight her friends lack of confidence not to imply they were using a hire car. Not to ask for how to insure someone else’s hire car.

When I learnt to drive my parents insured me on one of their cars and whichever of them was supervising got into that car... it never occurred to anyone a learner would be insured on multiple cars , so it never occurred to me that the friend would be supervising in anything other then an insured car.

We know from the post:
The supervising friend does not have their own car.
The supervising friend does not have their own insurance policy.

We also know:
No hire company's policy will cover a learner to drive.

We do not know:
The OP has their own car or not.
The OP has their own insurance policy or not.
The OP has their friend covered as a named driver on any policy they may have.
The supervising friend's father has the OP as a named driver on their policy.

Most people are law abiding

Indeed. Which is why asking them if they've thought about this factor is wise, don't you think?

All that's happened is that first off another poster, then the OP, has taken great exception to it even being raised. The OP has not mentioned that they have their own car or policy. Wouldn't you think that the easiest and quickest way to close down discussion of the issue? Not to mention the most positive and sensible...

But, no. So many people just default to taking offence. Why...?

Simby

AdrianC wrote: »

We know from the post:
The supervising friend does not have their own car.
The supervising friend does not have their own insurance policy.

We also know:
No hire company's policy will cover a learner to drive.

We do not know:
The OP has their own car or not.
The OP has their own insurance policy or not.
The OP has their friend covered as a named driver on any policy they may have.
The supervising friend's father has the OP as a named driver on their policy.


Indeed. Which is why asking them if they've thought about this factor is wise, don't you think?

All that's happened is that first off another poster, then the OP, has taken great exception to it even being raised. The OP has not mentioned that they have their own car or policy. Wouldn't you think that the easiest and quickest way to close down discussion of the issue? Not to mention the most positive and sensible...

But, no. So many people just default to taking offence. Why...?

Because the word imbecilic is one of the most derogatory insulting words I know and is a word that was used in times gone by for people viewed as inferior and is no longer used similarly to other words previously viewed by society as acceptable in days gone by .. I don’t think you could have chosen a more hateful word if you had tried... it is a word that is worse then any other insult I could think of and has no place in society .

AdrianC

Simby wrote: »

Because the word imbecilic is one of the most derogatory insulting words I know

Gosh, you have led a sheltered life, haven't you?

I don’t think you could have chosen a more hateful word if you had tried...

Umm, I think you might like to pay a bit more attention to user names, y'know.

Simby

SIMBY
Start in my backyard
NIMBY's know what they don't want. SIMBY's know what they do want and take good ideas and actively support or try them at home or in their community

Manxman_in_exile

Simby wrote: »

Because the word imbecilic is one of the most derogatory insulting words I know and is a word that was used in times gone by for people viewed as inferior and is no longer used similarly to other words previously viewed by society as acceptable in days gone by .. I don’t think you could have chosen a more hateful word if you had tried... it is a word that is worse then any other insult I could think of and has no place in society .

AdrianC didn't use the word "imbecilic" - I did. I think I could have come up with a word "worse then (sic) any other insult I could think of and has no place in society" quite easily. Are you complaining that I did not do so?


The fact remains that your suggestion that posters should not raise the question of insurance but should do so in a new thread because it's "off topic" is ludicrous and not at all helpful or "in the spirit" of MSE.


We can continue this next Tuesday or Thursday if you prefer.


Am I banned yet?

Simby

I did not ask for you to be banned merely that the post with the word in it be removed ... which incidentally is so bad there is now a law related to the use of the word- Rosa’s Law

Car_54

Simby wrote: »

Because the word imbecilic is one of the most derogatory insulting words I know and is a word that was used in times gone by for people viewed as inferior and is no longer used similarly to other words previously viewed by society as acceptable in days gone by .. I don’t think you could have chosen a more hateful word if you had tried... it is a word that is worse then any other insult I could think of and has no place in society .

That is an interesting opinion.


To enable us to avoid giving any further offence, could you perhaps provide a list of words you regard as unacceptable, in descending order of offence?

Manxman_in_exile

Simby wrote: »

I did not ask for you to be banned merely that the post with the word in it be removed ... which incidentally is so bad there is now a law related to the use of the word- Rosa’s Law

I'm very sorry - I didn't realise you lived in the USA and were posting on a UK website (did you realise?).


I don't live in the US and have not broken any law that I (apart from US snowflakes) know of.


I was going to go on about the US doing the "right thing" in another current motoring case but felt it in bad taste. FWIW I don't care what the USA thinks about "mental retardation".