Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Supervising learner after 30,000 Miles within 16 Months

Issues arising from our actions on the roads - including Transport.

Re: Supervising learner after 30,000 Miles within 16 Months

Postby atticus » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:10 pm

diy wrote:You nailed it in your first reply.
Of course I did, but the OP is determined to overcook his thinking and not to KISS. This nail appears to require vigorous hammering.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18351
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Supervising learner after 30,000 Miles within 16 Months

Postby Rich721 » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:17 pm

hahaha yes indeed it does lol, That cracked me up..

Thanks diy, most interesting, I was just about to post my experience of chatting to a constable earlier today.
He informed me that in his experience it is simply not possible for anyone to act as supervisor to a learner under the law without meeting the criteria.
The only offenses that apply to instruction of a learner, apply only to those supervising within the criteria under the law to do so. Otherwise your just a passenger.
He was of the opinion that there is no offense for a passenger offering instruction. It is the Learner that is offending by driving without the required supervision.

Was he perhaps wrong or his experience outdated?

P.S. I have already discovered and practiced the RoadCraft System tho and still find myself announcing my observations while alone in the car or Riding. And the limit and vanishing point technique likely saved me from having an accident on an unfamiliar road with a double apex early on in my fist 200 or so miles of driving inexperience. ;)

Its not worth the bother of risking my future at this time anyway, I have advised she seek Paid instruction from someone that knows what there doing over her friend.
Rich721
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Supervising learner after 30,000 Miles within 16 Months

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:35 pm

I agree with diy, and even if it were the case that the principal offence is committed by the learner, that does not preclude the unqualified supervisor from being prosecuted for an inchoate offence (eg encouraging or assisting the learner to commit the substantive offence).

More broadly the OP raises an interesting point which is sometimes hard to grasp. When passing law the legislature is faced with an often impossible task: the law must solve whatever problem it is intended to deal with, while at the same time being easy to understand (both for the people who are supposed to abide with it and the Courts), simple to comply with and straightforward to prosecute. It is very often not possible to do all of these things and the law on supervising learners is a case in point.

The problem Parliament wanted to deal with is clear: learner drivers being supervised by other drivers who have barely learned themselves. There is a plain public interest in ensuring they are supervised by other drivers with appropriate experience. Dealing with that problem, however, is far from straightforward. Parliament could have dealt with it by passing a law which said, for example, that a learner could only be supervised by someone "with appropriate experience" and left it to the Courts to interpret on a case-by-case basis. But that would have failed the test of being easy to interpret. How would the supervisor and learner know if they were complying with the law or not? They'd have to risk it.

Alternatively, it could have said that the Supervisor should have so many hours or miles of driving experience. But there's no system in place to record that information. It would have been a law that was impossible to comply with, or alternatively it would have been necessary to create some kind of system of recording everyone's driving time. Hardly practical.

What it has fallen back on is qualifying the supervisor by reference to the time they've had their licence. As the OP observes, that's quite crude at times and it creates all kinds of anomalies. He isn't qualified although he's driven a lot. But the law has the virtue of being easy to understand and straightforward to enforce. On the whole it deals with the problem. Perhaps he ought to be allowed to supervise, if we were able to choose, but the law has to take a rather broader approach.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6014
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: Supervising learner after 30,000 Miles within 16 Months

Postby diy » Sat Sep 12, 2015 6:34 am

The police officer was wrong to advise that the supervisor does not commit an offence. An offence is committed by allowing someone to drive not in accordance with their driving licence. Obviously it's easier for them to go after the learned given the evidence of who is behind the wheel.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Supervising learner after 30,000 Miles within 16 Months

Postby Rich721 » Sun Sep 13, 2015 7:42 pm

Very well put Smouldering Stoat, Quite insightful.. much Appreciated :D

diy wrote:The police officer was wrong to advise that the supervisor does not commit an offence. An offence is committed by allowing someone to drive not in accordance with their driving licence. Obviously it's easier for them to go after the learned given the evidence of who is behind the wheel.


Yes I suppose it would, Tho to be fair, he did disclaim himself and say he would only be able to give me his opinion based on experience...

Cheers diy.

P.S. After advising she seek Professional instruction, a relative not driven for some years due to anxiety on the roads after clipping a parked car in the first year is now supervising her.. :shock: :? :roll:
Rich721
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Supervising learner after 30,000 Miles within 16 Months

Postby shootist » Sun Sep 13, 2015 10:50 pm

diy wrote:The police officer was wrong to advise that the supervisor does not commit an offence. An offence is committed by allowing someone to drive not in accordance with their driving licence. Obviously it's easier for them to go after the learned given the evidence of who is behind the wheel.


Not sure it's that simple. For a start it might depend very much on who owns the car. Allowing someone to drive implies a degree of authority (use cause or permit style of thing). But if the learner driver owns the car and the newly qualified driver goes for a ride with him then is he supervising or merely present, particularly if the driver was to say that he was going for a drive regardless of whether there was anyone else in the car. Neither does there seem to be any chance of an 'aid and abet' charge unless the prosecution can prove at least some degree of encouragement on the part of the newly qualified driver. IIRC there would be no offence committed by a passenger who merely decides to go for a ride in a car driven by someone only holding a provisional licence.

Of course, if the car was owned by the person acting as supervisor when they were not qualified to do so, and they knew the driver was a provisional licence holder then the driver would commit the offence of driving while unsupervised and the passenger/owner would be liable for an offence of aiding and abetting them to do so.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3099
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Supervising learner after 30,000 Miles within 16 Months

Postby diy » Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:13 pm

Well not really. The criteria for the offence is clear on both the driver and the supervisor. Ownership of the vehicle doesn't really come in to it. The law doesn't restrict the offence to the Registered keeper or the owner.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Supervising learner after 30,000 Miles within 16 Months

Postby shootist » Tue Sep 15, 2015 4:12 pm

I cannot fine any law that states a qualified driver merely being present in a car that is being driven by a learner driver is by definition supervising him. As far as I can see, as long as there was no aid and abet, counsel or procure, or any cause or permit functions, then a qualified driver being present does not commit any offence. He will only do so if the role of a supervisor is established beyond reasonable doubt. So, learner driver to mate who has recently passed his test "I'm going into town tonight. Do you want a lift?" Reply "Yeah. OK." No arrangement to supervise. no offence on the part of the passenger.

If the car was owned by the passenger who permitted the learner to drive it then he's bound to catch something or other. Being a passenger is no offence that I can see. In the days when I was regularly knocking off learner motorcyclists for carrying an unqualified pillion passenger the passenger would automatically get done for aid and abet unless the bike wasn't displaying 'L' plates and the passenger didn't cough knowing the rider was a learner. While there was no obligation for a learner motorcyclist to be supervised they would be allowed to carry qualified riders. Not exactly the same situation I know, but I'm certain that merely being present does not constitute supervision. What if the driver had three newly qualified drivers in the car with him?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3099
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Supervising learner after 30,000 Miles within 16 Months

Postby diy » Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:10 am

Nobody is saying being present = acting as a supervisor. The statement being challenged was that the supervisor does not commit an offence in addition to the driver, which the OP was told by plod. This is wrong. If you are acting as a supervisor and don't meet the criteria then you are causing someone to drive not in accordance with their license.

I provided links on page 1 to the relevant laws.

The conditions attached to provisional licenses are in
The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999, sec 16 & 17.

the specific offence is here: Road Traffic Act sec 82, 2

It is an offence for a person to cause or permit another person to drive on a road a motor vehicle of any class [F2otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising that other person] to drive a motor vehicle of that class.


Now... I totally get that for the offence to stick the "supervisor" needs to fess up to being a supervisor, or more likely the magistrates believes it to be the likely explanation (cough, splutter, I mean beyond reasonable doubt etc).
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Supervising learner after 30,000 Miles within 16 Months

Postby Rich7212 » Thu Jun 30, 2016 11:48 pm

Hey guys, Me, the OP, Back again. ;)

I never said it, but I do appreciate you all bearing with me, educating me and doing to leg work digging the legislation up for me to read. I admit it, I was naive and of inexperience with the law.

In summary: We established
  • It is illegal under the legislation for a young and/or inexperienced driver to supervise.
  • This comes from legislators pursuing a clear public interest in restricting the inexperienced and mentally undeveloped for obvious reasons. the Blind leading the Blind, Mental Incapacity etc..
  • The act achieves this goal by restricting the only foreseeable, measurable factors of determining both mental maturity and experience. That being Age, [21+] and Elapsed Time. [3 Years Elapsed]
And while not everyone is the same, most drivers experience likely falls within a common, if somewhat wide ranging level in relation to the time elapsed since passing there test. Perhaps inevitably though, some will simply not have practiced, and will possess an inferior to nonexistent level of experience to the norm. And some will have had a marginally higher to abnormally high levels of practice, and as a result will surpass the experience gained by those who have held there licence over the same duration, and meet the experience of those who have held there licence for years longer than themselves.

The presence of these outliers means that contrary to public interest, and the legislation's intention:
  • 21+ inexperienced drivers can legally supervise if the time elapses and they simply have not gained any experience.
  • 21+ experienced drivers cannot legally supervise if they have gained an abnormally high level of experience in a short time, and three years simply has not yet elapsed..


The subject came up earlier today with a friends daughter who is studying law.

The Question she put to me:
If the relevant legislation is to satisfy the clear public interest of restricting the inexperienced from supervising.
  • What measure of intervention can be placed on the inexperienced.
  • And where is the resolution for the experienced ?


Many Thanks Guys.


P.S Note to Admin/Curious of my usernames extra digit.
I forgot my password. SwarbLaw said it had emailed me to recover my password every time I entered my correct user & email, and said it could not be found when my email was wrong.
My email format is First.Middle.LastName@domain.com I suspect that this decimal formatting may have caused a problem with the forum softwares outbound email filter if there isn't normally a problem as I have never received any email from swarb law, to welcome me or recover my password. I have made this account with an extra digit, using the same email.
Rich7212
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 8:11 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Road Traffic Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest