On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 22:22:55 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote

AFAICT that is not a statutary requirement, merely an action which
provides more certainty in most cases WRT to whether or not the
telephone user is "driving" the vehicle for the purposes of
determining if there is a breach of s.41D Road Traffic Act 1988 :0

"Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones
etc.

41D
A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a construction and
use requirement—
(a)
as to not driving a motor vehicle in a position which does not give
proper control or a full view of the road and traffic ahead, or not
causing or permitting the driving of a motor vehicle by another person
in such a position, or
(b)
as to not driving or supervising the driving of a motor vehicle while
using a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive
communication device, or not causing or permitting the driving of a
motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or other
device,

is guilty of an offence."

The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest that I
can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving on a provisional
license. Interesting.

"Stimpy" wrote

The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest that
I
can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving on a
provisional
license. Interesting.

The AA has given this some publicity this week
http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/...ng-school.html

If you need glasses to drive you must also wear them while you're
supervising your daughter.

Peter

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 09:58:18 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:
"Stimpy" wrote
The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest that
I
can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving on a
provisional
license. Interesting.

The AA has given this some publicity this week
http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/...ng-school.html

If you need glasses to drive you must also wear them while you're
supervising your daughter.


How clever of the AA to try to deter people from helping their
relations learn to drive. Of course they should be going here
instead:
http://www.theaa.com/driving-school/index.html

Bruce gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest
that I can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving on a
provisional license. Interesting.

The AA has given this some publicity this week
http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/...el/aa-populus-
supervising-learner-drivers-aa-driving-school.html

If you need glasses to drive you must also wear them while you're
supervising your daughter.

How clever of the AA to try to deter people from helping their relations
learn to drive.

What's such a "deterrent" in reminding the learner's supervisor of their
legal responsibilities?

I'd have thought it basic common sense that the supervising full licence
holder takes the same responsibilities as if they were driving themself.

On Aug 4, 11:05*am, Bruce wrote:

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 09:58:18 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

"Stimpy" wrote
The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest
that I can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving
on a provisional license. Interesting.

The AA has given this some publicity this week
http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/...ng-school.html

If you need glasses to drive you must also wear them while you're
supervising your daughter.

How clever of the AA to try to deter people from helping their
relations learn to drive. *Of course they should be going here
instead:
http://www.theaa.com/driving-school/index.html

Of course the AA are trying to flog something - in this case the "
Supporting Learner Drivers" course offered by their Driving School -
but that doesn't invalidate the basic points that are made w.r.t. the
responsibilities those who are supervising learner drivers have.

(Also, I think there's some research to suggest that learning with a
relative isn't always a great idea - all rather depends on the
familial dynamics of course.)

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 04:20:01 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:
On Aug 4, 11:05*am, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 09:58:18 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

"Stimpy" wrote
The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest
that I can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving
on a provisional license. Interesting.

The AA has given this some publicity this week
http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/...ng-school.html

If you need glasses to drive you must also wear them while you're
supervising your daughter.

How clever of the AA to try to deter people from helping their
relations learn to drive. *Of course they should be going here
instead:
http://www.theaa.com/driving-school/index.html

Of course the AA are trying to flog something - in this case the "
Supporting Learner Drivers" course offered by their Driving School -
but that doesn't invalidate the basic points that are made w.r.t. the
responsibilities those who are supervising learner drivers have.


Perhaps the AA should choose whether it wants to (a) give useful,
practical and responsible advice or (b) brazenly advertise its
commercial services. There seems to be some confusion between the two
possible objectives.


(Also, I think there's some research to suggest that learning with a
relative isn't always a great idea - all rather depends on the
familial dynamics of course.)


I learnt with BSM but was "supported" by my father. Poor man, it must
have been very stressful for him.

Later, I got my just desserts when, after he died, I "supported" my
mother in her attempts to learn to drive. It was the most stressful
experience I have ever had. :-(

Stimpy gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest
that I can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving on a
provisional license. Interesting.

Nor can you have a snooze etc. There was a bit about precisely that on R4
earlier this week - can't remember if it was You & Yours or Today. You
are in charge of the car.

In message k
Stimpy wrote:

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 22:22:55 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote

AFAICT that is not a statutary requirement, merely an action which
provides more certainty in most cases WRT to whether or not the
telephone user is "driving" the vehicle for the purposes of
determining if there is a breach of s.41D Road Traffic Act 1988 :0

"Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones
etc.

41D
A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a construction and
use requirement—
(a)
as to not driving a motor vehicle in a position which does not give
proper control or a full view of the road and traffic ahead, or not
causing or permitting the driving of a motor vehicle by another person
in such a position, or
(b)
as to not driving or supervising the driving of a motor vehicle while
using a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive
communication device, or not causing or permitting the driving of a
motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or other
device,

is guilty of an offence."

The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest that I
can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving on a provisional
license. Interesting.


No you can't, legally you are in charge of the vehicle.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On 4 Aug, 10:51, Graeme wrote:
In message k
* * * * * Stimpy wrote:





On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 22:22:55 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote

AFAICT that is not a statutary requirement, merely an action which
provides more certainty in most cases WRT to whether or not the
telephone user is "driving" the vehicle for the purposes of
determining if there is a breach of s.41D Road Traffic Act 1988 :0

"Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones
etc.

41D
A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a construction and
use requirement—
(a)
as to not driving a motor vehicle in a position which does not give
proper control or a full view of the road and traffic ahead, or not
causing or permitting the driving of a motor vehicle by another person
in such a position, or
(b)
as to not driving or supervising the driving of a motor vehicle while
using a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive
communication device, or not causing or permitting the driving of a
motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or other
device,

is guilty of an offence."

The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest that I
can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving on a provisional
license. *Interesting.

No you can't, legally you are in charge of the vehicle.

What if you are supervising someone who is named on the insurance, but
you aren't (and therefore can supervise but can't drive)?

MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest
that I can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving on
a provisional license. Â*Interesting.

No you can't, legally you are in charge of the vehicle.

What if you are supervising someone who is named on the insurance, but
you aren't (and therefore can supervise but can't drive)?

You're liable to get nicked.