Aiding, abetting, etc

[waremark]

I'm not an IAM member so I don't know, and I appreciate that the power of this sort of organisation in advanced driving is to lay down a rigid standard which must be achieved, but are there no areas of choice or doubt?

Indeed, there is considerable flexibility. You could pass an IAM test using a range of techniques and styles so long as the drive was Safe, Systematic, Smooth, and at an appropriate Speed.

While the IAM's official position is that they do not condone exceeding the speed limit, if they adopted this infexibly then very few people would ever pass. The level of flexibility allowed will vary from examiner to examiner. I asked one whether to miss a 30 sign and drive safely at about 40 would be an instant and certain fail. He said: 'If the rest of the drive was excellent then I might not have noticed that infringement. On the other hand if I am not comfortable with the drive I might fail the candidate for a much lower excess over the speed limit.'

What a sensible chap. Most examiners are.

[Nigel]

Von

You might be able to help me out here, with something the IAM do, but I'm uncomfortable with (I've raised it at local level, but not higher).

When I first meet a candidate for the first time, I'm expected to check his driving documents, licence , insurance, mot, and to have a glance at his vehicle, check his eyesight with a "read that numberplate" check.

I have served as a police officer, so have had some training on checking documents, but I'm still not an expert, and using my own licence at an IAM meeting I caught everyone out with "whats different about this ? "...except a traffic officer, he spotted it straight away (its medically restricted).

When it comes to checking the vehicle, I'm competant, but again I'm no expert, for example until recently I didn't know the min tread depth for motorcycles was 1 mm, I'd have expected it to have gone to 1.6 mm when cars did (neither did the officer who reported it )

Would it not be better to have them sign something to say all their documents and vehicle are in order ?, and remove any onus from the observer ?

[vonhosen]

Von

You might be able to help me out here, with something the IAM do, but I'm uncomfortable with (I've raised it at local level, but not higher).

When I first meet a candidate for the first time, I'm expected to check his driving documents, licence , insurance, mot, and to have a glance at his vehicle, check his eyesight with a "read that numberplate" check.

I have served as a police officer, so have had some training on checking documents, but I'm still not an expert, and using my own licence at an IAM meeting I caught everyone out with "whats different about this ? "...except a traffic officer, he spotted it straight away (its medically restricted).

When it comes to checking the vehicle, I'm competant, but again I'm no expert, for example until recently I didn't know the min tread depth for motorcycles was 1 mm, I'd have expected it to have gone to 1.6 mm when cars did (neither did the officer who reported it )

Would it not be better to have them sign something to say all their documents and vehicle are in order ?, and remove any onus from the observer ?

For you to be aiding & abetting in those circumstances, you'd need to have knowledge of the defect. For instance, the tyre is illegal but never mind let's go.

[MGF]

I thought the reason you check documents is for insurance purposes. In that case 'competant' would be sufficient to discharge your duty of care. It is unnecessary, in my view, to be an expert.

[Advanced Roadcraft]

I thought the reason you check documents is for insurance purposes. In that case 'competant' would be sufficient to discharge your duty of care. It is unnecessary, in my view, to be an expert.

The reason that I don't check documents, eyesight, C&S etc and prefer clients to sign a waiver is that I have been advised that if I were to check and miss something relevant I could be held liable. If I don't check, but get them to 'self certify' it's their problem, not mine.

[crr003]

The reason that I don't check ..., eyesight, ....and prefer clients to sign a waiver is that I have been advised that if I were to check and miss something relevant I could be held liable. If I don't check, but get them to 'self certify' it's their problem, not mine.

How does that help you if their eyesight is poor? I'd rather know before I get in a car with a stranger that they can at least see a bit!

[Nigel]

I thought the reason you check documents is for insurance purposes. In that case 'competant' would be sufficient to discharge your duty of care. It is unnecessary, in my view, to be an expert.

The reason that I don't check documents, eyesight, C&S etc and prefer clients to sign a waiver is that I have been advised that if I were to check and miss something relevant I could be held liable. If I don't check, but get them to 'self certify' it's their problem, not mine.

Thats exactly what worries me !

[Advanced Roadcraft]

The reason that I don't check ..., eyesight, ....and prefer clients to sign a waiver is that I have been advised that if I were to check and miss something relevant I could be held liable. If I don't check, but get them to 'self certify' it's their problem, not mine.

How does that help you if their eyesight is poor? I'd rather know before I get in a car with a stranger that they can at least see a bit!

I could say that their being able to read the waiver (very small type LOL) tells me that they can...but half of them sign without reading it anyway.

You've made me rethink this; while I still prefer the waiver for docs & vehicle compliance, I'm going to start checking eyesight for myself.

I was wrong;you are right. (Now there's a phrase you won't hear very often!

Best, B

[Søren]

My take on aid and abet in this particular context is fairly simple.

If there was active encouragement to exceed the limit by the observer, and the driver felt it was given as an instruction, then the observer would be abeting.

If however the observer was omissive, then I can see no avenue for prosecution as he would have offered no encouragement.

Passive presence can be seen as abeting an offence, but in the instructor/learner scenario.

In the IAM observational situation the driver is already qualified. He knows the rules and risks of the road. The observer's omission would carry no more weight than any passenger sitting saying nothing.

[SammyTheSnake]

I could say that their being able to read the waiver (very small type LOL) tells me that they can...but half of them sign without reading it anyway.

I had to sign a waiver when I joined a climbing wall recently, and they made sure we read the print by having a series of tick-box questions, but whether each question was supposed to be yes or no appeared to be random, so you had to actually read them to correctly sign the waiver

Perhaps give them two waivers to sign, and fill one of them with random things like "I promise to give you a fiver every time I turn right" then say "Please sign whichever one of these waivers is applicable"

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny