The Only Thing a GLP Driver Supervisor Cannot be is Dead

I find it interesting that the article posted by the lawyer originally stated the driver had an"N" licence and later posted that it was actually a learners permit,which in my opinion completely changes the circumstances.While it appears the purpose of the article was to generate public outrage for what seemed to be heavy handed justice,I am inclined to agree with how it was handled by the RCMP to a certain point.Although there was an update added to the article after the original posting,which stated it was a learners permit,the outrage train had already left the station.Where it gets confusing is the impaired charge to the passenger, who was supposed to be instructing the learner.My understanding is a learners permit is to allow hands on instruction and supervision to teach driving skills.It is not an excuse to allow an unlicensed driver to drive,and I would hope that ICBC has a clear set of guidelines regarding that, and also the specifics regarding the fitness of the teacher that is instructing.I feel that the parents showed bad judgement by allowing the situation to evolve as it did,and my take is the car should have been towed,as a safety issue,and also it was the responsable thing for them to do so, in order to protect other drivers on the road.Maybe you can answer a couple of questions for me Please

1 If they were in an accident,would the insurance be valid?

2If the RCMP had not intervened after inspecting and being made aware of the circumstances,and ther was a crash,what sort of problems would that create?

3 Can you elaborate on the impaired charge to the passenger?

Thanks

Also wonder if someone in the car managed to make the situation worse, by speaking in"KOKANEE"

I would like to have more information.

The reports I read the son is 22, rather old in my opinion to have a "L" Then if he had a "N" would not require a supervisor. Did he travel with the parents to the party and stay the designated driver?

Is this a situation where the GLP created the problem? Is there a requirement where a person still in the "N" stage from another jurisdiction has to revert back to an "L" when they get a licence in B.C.?

Would be interesting to hear the full story.

In the previous case if I remember correctly it was the grandson driving his grandfather home after being driven to the bar to pick-up the vehicle and grandfather. As he had an "L" could not drive by himself, only combination was to have the learner drive with the possibly impaired person.

We should just drop this GLP. Might work fine in cities but in rural areas it creates a lot of problems. Kids that should have a full licence are stuck with an "L". Have a "N" restricted to the number of passangers. So you get a group of teens working at a mill together doing clean-up have to get their parents to pick them up after work due to a stupid law.

And then even by ICBC reports new drivers taught by a non-professional have a lower accident rate. And before you tell me to show you the information go to ICBC and look it up. It is there in the reports.

But let's think about this issue for a moment, particularly the legal requirements - and potential penalties, if the police determine that a charge should be brought against ... someone.

Different jurisdictions address the requirements that a Learner Driver must follow in quite different ways. Plus which, we have to consider just what a 'License' is, and how it was earned. Or not.

Firstly, just for purposes of analogy, compare the requirements in the UK (considered to be a comparatively stringent jurisdiction) to here in BC. Over there, you can be ignorant as anything about driving, lack adequate vision for the task (because none of this stuff is actually ascertained until the day of your Driving Test), and they don't care so long as you send the necessary fee and requisite ID to the DVLA.  At that point, then they'll cheerfully send you what they term as a 'Provisional License' which can then be used to practice and learn about driving under certain conditions (including the requirement for an adult licensed driver to be in the vehicle, in common with most jurisdictions).

Here in BC, certain fundamental requirements must be met. Starting with a Knowledge Test, to determine whether the Applicant should be issued their Learner License; nothing new with that either, it was ever so even before GLP came along 20+ years back. So if you don't have adequate comprehension of general driving laws, along with road signs, or if your eyesight doesn't meet the standards, then you don't get that Learner License and you can't legally drive yet, period. You have to earn that there Learner License, by virtue of your acquired knowledge and ability beforehand. It's a Driving License, dammit; you can be issued traffic tickets, you must follow all driving regulations, and so consequently you are responsible for your actions behind the wheel. This includes any Restrictions on your license, of course; one of which is for you to be properly accompanied by the appropriately licensed person. That means some licensed person in the right front seat, who hopefully knows a bit about driving ... but that can't be legislated. Also it's worth noting that for an initial Class 6/8 Learner's, the restriction is against having passengers, rather than making a passenger a requirement. So if your first driver license is for a motorcycle, you're allowed to teach yourself, by yourself all about driving (except you can go do this amongst all the rest of us).

There is no legal definition of 'appropriate', though. There can't be! Not to go off-topic here, but I'm reminded of how comedian George Carlin once opened a show, it went something like this: "Do you realize that, somewhere on this planet, some person has the world's worst doctor?" It's undeniable, of course. Well guess what? The same thing goes for parents, and other adult licensed drivers. The Learner doesn't really get to pick and choose! It's an inescapable fact that somewhere in the world, somebody has the world's greatest parent for the purpose in the right front seat - and somebody else has the world's worst. But it's not for a learner to make this judgment, any more than a person gets to pre-scrutinize their teachers in High School.

I used to run Driving Instructor training courses for a large DTS. Something I always emphasized, is that the Instructor's job - and the parent's also - is to make themselves redundant. That's what it's all about. The fresh faced driver who gets behind the wheel for ths first time will not be the same individual who is later able to pass their test! It's all wrong if the parent/adult is still advising them all the time, and I doubt that this was the case in the Nelson story. They will have learned to function behind the wheel on their own, if their parents and/or DTS have done their job. That's primarily what the Road Test measures.

So I reckon that this youngster made his/her best decision at the time, whilst following the numerous restrictions on their LDL. They cannot be liable for their passenger's behaviour. But I do also wonder how they got to the party; perhaps by bus?

How the person got to the party we do not know. There is always the possibility he drove his parents there and was the desiginated driver.

Regarding another view from enforcement I always recommend people appeal their conviction. You will never get a fair trial in a Kangaroo court which is what traffic court is. If you can get into a higher court you have a very good chance of winning. Personally never lost.

From what I have seen written previously there is nothing in the act stating the supervisor has to be sober. I think the person in your case had a good chance of reversing the kangaroo judges decision.

Again only going on what is written and without the full background we are all only guessing.

... in regard to this 'Qualified Supervisor' question.

IMHO, based on the information I've learned from this here site, the police have erred seriously here. They seem to think so, too, according to the Castanet article. They're eager to cancel that mistaken IRP, in fact.

In fact, it appears that the most serious licensing infraction was the choice of the driver to drive solo to pick up his parents; this transportation may even have been pre-planned, which is a worry if you think about it. So the key issue, from an insurance point of view, would be whether he would be properly covered en route to get his parents despite clearly failing to obey that restriction on his L license. However, that was not discovered until afterward and no charges were brought forward; so it didn't happen, under law (that's my comprehension of it). And personally, I doubt if that choice this young adult made to drive solo would be relevant unless he (a) got caught in the act or (b) was found at fault in a collision en route. Neither of these occurred.

Let's go forward now (using our imaginations, because this didn't happen, yet) to next Christmas. By now, this young fellow has passed his Class 7 test and is now an 'N' driver.  He's sitting at home, totally sober and everything, and one of his parents phones from a party, asking him to drive them and a couple of their adult friends home; all of these potential passengers have been consuming alcohol and smoking weed (all perfectly legal) and they're feeling no pain, y'know?

So of course he goes and picks them up. He ensures that the 'N' is clearly displayed, and leaves his phone in the glove compartment, turned off.  and while delivering every person safely home, he goes through a roadblock. The restrictions applying to his C7N license include a limit on the number of passengers who are not family members, unless there's a 'Qualified Supervisor' in the car (i.e. a licensed 25+ year old parent).

And let's remember, by now this driver has been functioning solo behind the wheel for months now, perfectly legally and perfectly safely.

Would anybody (in uniform or otherwise) want to try and argue that he's driving in contravention to the restrictions on his license? Because I think he's made the best choice possible in the circumstances.