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

Car_54

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

Those words were historically used to mean people with mental illnesses/problems and are now frowned upon, words such as imbecile, idiot, spaz, mongol are all offensive, and nowadays are not acceptable and deemed offensive.

Deemed by whom?

onwards&upwards

Car_54 wrote: »

Deemed by whom?

Decent human beings.

Car_54

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

... the supervising party has to be insured and behaving as if they were the actual driver?

No, he/she does not have to be insured.

Blackpool_Saver

Car_54 wrote: »

No, he/she does not have to be insured.

So how would they take over the driving/control of the vehicle in the event of needing to?

Car_54

onwards&upwards wrote: »

Decent human beings.

If I were to describe Jeremy Corbyn (or Boris Johnson) as an idiot, I’d suggest very few “decent human beings” would be offended. Least of all the individuals concerned. And millions of DHBs would agree.

onwards&upwards

Car_54 wrote: »

If I were to describe Jeremy Corbyn (or Boris Johnson) as an idiot, I’d suggest very few “decent human beings” would be offended. Least of all the individuals concerned. And millions of DHBs would agree.

Idiot has been used so much it has lost most of its original connotations and is less of an issue, I would argue imbecile is the same.

Words like cretin, mongol, spaz, retard etc. are different, worse, and would not be used by anyone who cared about other people’s feelings or common decency.

Car_54

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

So how would they take over the driving/control of the vehicle in the event of needing to?

He can’t take over driving. If the learner can’t continue for any reason then they’re stuck. That’s why it’s a good idea to be insured, but it’s not a legal requirement.

If he needs to “take control”, e.g. by grabbing the wheel, then he’s no different from any other passenger who might do so, and doesn’t need to be insured.

Blackpool_Saver

Car_54 wrote: »

He can’t take over driving. If the learner can’t continue for any reason then they’re stuck. That’s why it’s a good idea to be insured, but it’s not a legal requirement.

If he needs to “take control”, e.g. by grabbing the wheel, then he’s no different from any other passenger who might do so, and doesn’t need to be insured.

I can't even be bothered to reply.:eek:

[Deleted User]

Sounds like the OP wants their friend to actually be teaching them to drive in the same manner as a qualified ADI. Not going to happen. Use your friend's car for practice, but if you want to learn to drive and pass a test, use the ADI.

Also I highly doubt your friend hiring a car and letting you drive is legal. Do the hire company know this?

cajef

Car_54 wrote: »

The supervisor doesn't need to be insured, although it's obviously sensible for him/her to be.

Correct, when I was an ADI this question came up regularly as stated it is sensible for them to be insured but not a legal requirement consequently we always advised that they should be, however as long as the learner is insured to drive the car it is not necessary that if they go out with several different people they are all insured to drive the vehicle.

Post #88 above is also correct.