[Somner]

I am currently learning to drive and have my own. I very often go out driving with my mum as the supervisor. This is fine I am sure as she is insured comprehensively on her own car and that also gives her third party on mine.

However, I very often go out driving with a friend as a supervisor. He is 21 years old and has had a full driving license for over 3 years. However, being under 25, his comprehensive insurance does not cover him third party on my car. Now, the DSA (or DVLA) website does not mention that this is required, but then it doesn't even mention that the supervisor must be sat in the front, or that they need to be able to control the car.. Some websites I have read say that the supervisor needs to be insured on the car. Is this right?

[Cruachan]

As far as I am aware, it is the driver who needs to be insured to drive the car.

So, while the supervising driver has certain responsibilities in law, any claim on insurance in the event of an incident would be against the driver's insurance.

Hopefully someone will come along and confirm this for you, but what websites told you that a supervising driver requires insurance?

[dmeredith]

You have to ensure that you have your own insurance when driving any of these cars - unless you are a named driver you will not be covered if you have an accident while you are driving, even as a provisional driver.
Apologies if you already have this, but I'm not sure if this is the case from how I read it (I read it as you thinking that as long as your supervisor is insured you will be covered - this is not the case, as even a provisional driver must have insurance).

[Somner]

I'm insured comprehensively on my car, as the main driver. It is just that I have heard that the supervisor must be insured to drive the car too, even if it is only third party cover which is part of their own cars comprehensive cover.

[Rian1988]

It is fine but if you get stuck in a situation your supervisor will not be allowed to drive the car.

[lalaland]

I can confirm that when supervising a learner driver, only the learner driver needs to be insured to drive that vehicle.

It's a good idea that the supervisor is insured too, just in case they need to take over the driving, even if just to manouvre the car out of a 'tight spot', but it's not a legal requirement.

So as long as your friend meets all the other requirements regarding supervising a learner driver then it seems that you've found yourself another willing, and legal, supervisor for you to learn to drive with

While we're on this subject, remember that while they are supervising you they cannot use their mobile phone. I'm chucking this in to the thread as I recently caught someone supervising a learner driver while on their phone. They weren't happy about the results and claimed negligence, but if people are going to supervise others then they need to be in the know about these things. If your friend's not aware you can inform them (it's also worth remembering that using a learner driver to take your car home from the pub when you've been drinking isn't allowed either. Supervising someone while you're over the drink drive limit will also land you in the poo, although I've yet to come across someone doing this).

Good luck learning to drive and don't forget to let us all know when you pass

[Somner]

Originally Posted by lalaland

I can confirm that when supervising a learner driver, only the learner driver needs to be insured to drive that vehicle.

It's a good idea that the supervisor is insured too, just in case they need to take over the driving, even if just to manouvre the car out of a 'tight spot', but it's not a legal requirement.

So as long as your friend meets all the other requirements regarding supervising a learner driver then it seems that you've found yourself another willing, and legal, supervisor for you to learn to drive with

While we're on this subject, remember that while they are supervising you they cannot use their mobile phone. I'm chucking this in to the thread as I recently caught someone supervising a learner driver while on their phone. They weren't happy about the results and claimed negligence, but if people are going to supervise others then they need to be in the know about these things. If your friend's not aware you can inform them (it's also worth remembering that using a learner driver to take your car home from the pub when you've been drinking isn't allowed either. Supervising someone while you're over the drink drive limit will also land you in the poo, although I've yet to come across someone doing this).

Good luck learning to drive and don't forget to let us all know when you pass

Great. That's a relief. The reason I ask is that I get to go driving very often with my friend which is great for my learning. However, he mentioned the other night that two police in a police car gave us a bit of a dodgy look. It doesn't really surprise me, because I guess you don't often see two young lads in a car with L plates - most people are supervised by parents etc. If I do end up getting pulled over and check because they think I'm driving illegally then the last thing I want is for me friend to have actually been required to be insured to drive my car as well. I don't think driving illegally would go down too well on my application form for the Police now would it!

[Cruachan]

Originally Posted by lalaland

... while they are supervising you they cannot use their mobile phone. I'm chucking this in to the thread as I recently caught someone supervising a learner driver while on their phone. They weren't happy about the results and claimed negligence ...

I'm intrigued lalaland, who did they claim was being negligent and on what basis?

Only one being negligent, from what you've said, is the person using the mobile phone when they ought not to have been.

[swnymor1963]

Originally Posted by Cruachan

I'm intrigued lalaland, who did they claim was being negligent and on what basis?

Only one being negligent, from what you've said, is the person using the mobile phone when they ought not to have been.

I think he meant they were claiming "ignorance"........ie They were unaware that this was the law.Thats my take on this post.

[Cruachan]

Originally Posted by swnymor1963

I think he meant they were claiming "ignorance"........ie They were unaware that this was the law.Thats my take on this post.

Ah, yes, that would make sense, swnymor1963.

[duffystev]

According to this thread from ROSPA the Supervising driver requires insurance.

Learner Driver
http://www.helpingldrivers.com/law/learner.htm

Supervisor
http://www.helpingldrivers.com/law/supervisor.htm

[Miss Poppy]

What lalaland says is true - don't have to be insured (unless take over driving) but are still (in rather contradictory way) assumed to be 'in charge of the car' so have to be under alcohol limit and not using a mobile phone.

This website www.2pass.co.uk is really good - has a forum full of excellent advice!

[lalaland]

Originally Posted by swnymor1963

I think he meant they were claiming "ignorance"........ie They were unaware that this was the law.Thats my take on this post.

That's the one. Sorry, it was a late night post

But yep, that was pretty much it, the old 'I didn't know' excuse. So hopefully that's one less thanks to this thread

[lalaland]

Originally Posted by duffystev

According to this thread from ROSPA the Supervising driver requires insurance.

Learner Driver
http://www.helpingldrivers.com/law/learner.htm

Supervisor
http://www.helpingldrivers.com/law/supervisor.htm

That's not true in this situation. In the OP's situation they are the owner of the car and are insured as a learner driver to drive that car under supervision. In this case the insurance is adequate without the supervisor holding insurance for that vehicle, unless they wish to drive it themselves which isn't the case.

If the OP was driving someone else's car as a learner then the ROSPA information would be correct.

I think that ROSPA site is a little misleading.

[Somner]

Originally Posted by lalaland

That's not true in this situation. In the OP's situation they are the owner of the car and are insured as a learner driver to drive that car under supervision. In this case the insurance is adequate without the supervisor holding insurance for that vehicle, unless they wish to drive it themselves which isn't the case.

If the OP was driving someone else's car as a learner then the ROSPA information would be correct.

I think that ROSPA site is a little misleading.

That is where I read it in the first place. It didn't sound right and I think they need to reword it.

[duffystev]

Originally Posted by lalaland

That's not true in this situation. In the OP's situation they are the owner of the car and are insured as a learner driver to drive that car under supervision. In this case the insurance is adequate without the supervisor holding insurance for that vehicle, unless they wish to drive it themselves which isn't the case.

If the OP was driving someone else's car as a learner then the ROSPA information would be correct.

I think that ROSPA site is a little misleading.

I agree it is misleading. I just copied the thread then did some further checking. No other sites claim the Supervising driver needs insurance. Including this thread.

http://www.kensdrivingschool.com/sup...g%20driver.htm

[lalaland]

I'm not going on threads, I'm going on the law. As stated earlier in the thread, I've stopped learner drivers in the past and if this was a legal requirement I'd have had a couple for insurance related offences.

I do however find it amusing on your link that it says this

"I learned to drive in just 10 lessons and passed first time"

Unfortunately this is not a realistic view of modern driving.

shrewd business sense from a driving school eh? "Nah, you'll need more than ten lessons" $$££$$

[Book-Club_Babe]

Originally Posted by Somner

I am currently learning to drive and have my own. I very often go out driving with my mum as the supervisor. This is fine I am sure as she is insured comprehensively on her own car and that also gives her third party on mine.

However, I very often go out driving with a friend as a supervisor. He is 21 years old and has had a full driving license for over 3 years. However, being under 25, his comprehensive insurance does not cover him third party on my car. Now, the DSA (or DVLA) website does not mention that this is required, but then it doesn't even mention that the supervisor must be sat in the front, or that they need to be able to control the car.. Some websites I have read say that the supervisor needs to be insured on the car. Is this right?

Your Mum is insured to drive your car (albeit third party) - but she is not driving it, you are.

So - the short answer is "Yes".

[Somner]

Originally Posted by Book-Club_Babe

Your Mum is insured to drive your car (albeit third party) - but she is not driving it, you are.

So - the short answer is "Yes".

Thanks. But I am not asking if my mum can supervise my driving. I know that is fine. I am asking if my friend (who is not insured to drive my car) can supervise my driving - and it now appears that he can.

[dmp]

I am a RoSPA instructor for advanced driving and we are covered for personal indemnity by RoSPA incase our pupil has an accident while obeying an instruction. Hopefully never needed but there just in case.
Dave