ADUK Archive

Since the heavy boot of moderation has been stamped down forever on the face of open ranging discussion, does anyone have a definitive answer for whether the aiding and abetting interpretation applies to omissive coaches, and not just company line managers etc?

Thats a very specific and personal term 7? What do you define as a submissive coach? At the end of the day the result has been pasted by me on to this forum direct from the database that depicts the law... if you are in the car and have any INFLUENCE (thats a very broad term) then yes it counts.

A coach (define) means someone who has influence. Does a Tennis Coash have influence over his pupils?

I dont wish to turn this forum into a legal debate, but the point is, we are all caught by the legislation. That is why I can't condone speeding as an IAM observer and that is why Von cannot condone excess speed in any speed limit where he judges it to be unsafe (he will have an influence over the police driver and if he omits to "say" something or take action where HE SEES FIT***) he will also risk the aid/abet/council/procure offence.

***Based on training that cannot be discussed in depth on a public forum and will be way above what anyone expects!!!!***

James wrote:Thats a very specific and personal term 7? What do you define as a submissive coach?

A 'submissive' coach. Is that something which is going to be banned by the proposed laws against violent pornography?

I think what DB means by an 'omissive' coach is one who does not say: 'You are over the speed limit, slow down'.

Personally, I think the chances of an aiding and abetting prosecution being brought against any sort of driving observer coach or instructor other than in the cases of a serious accident or of exceptionally high speeds are approximately zero. There are easier and more worthwhile prosecutions to be brought out there.

hpcdriver wrote:

James wrote:Thats a very specific and personal term 7? What do you define as a submissive coach?

A 'submissive' coach. Is that something which is going to be banned by the proposed laws against violent pornography?

I think what DB means by an 'omissive' coach is one who does not say: 'You are over the speed limit, slow down'.

Personally, I think the chances of an aiding and abetting prosecution being brought against any sort of driving observer coach or instructor other than in the cases of a serious accident or of exceptionally high speeds are approximately zero. There are easier and more worthwhile prosecutions to be brought out there.

I don't know about easier, but certainly more worthwhile....and probably most of them have nothing to do with pure speed....IMHO.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

hpcdriver wrote:Personally, I think the chances of an aiding and abetting prosecution being brought against any sort of driving observer coach or instructor other than in the cases of a serious accident or of exceptionally high speeds are approximately zero. There are easier and more worthwhile prosecutions to be brought out there.

Thats right and we have never said it is lilkely. That fact will always remain that it is possible, and in fact quite feasible. As the advanced training continues and increases, so will the likelihood of being stopped or snapped. Our point is and has always been , if it happens, wach your back.

My pointing out initially of all these things, was because it appeared the IAMs stance was being questioned. I honestly don't see in light of the legislation how they can take any other stance.

StressedDave wrote: From my experience, I spend lots of time getting people to slow down and I've yet to tell someone to speed up...

But you don't do IAM do you? Some seem to come in with the notion that we potter around (saying that, some do.....). My current associate is an ADI, and it's taken a couple of runs to "get up to speed", but we have some interesting discussions - mainly about signalling!

This aids, abets, counsels thing - how easy is it to find someone guilty? If, when something goes wrong, it's a question of the Associate's word against the Observer's word, would CPS bother with that?

vonhosen wrote:My pointing out initially of all these things, was because it appeared the IAMs stance was being questioned. I honestly don't see in light of the legislation how they can take any other stance.

Aren't they agnostic on anything?

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?

Will IAM fail you if your car has a safe but technically illegal aspect to it? Do they insist on all aspects of CUR being closey followed and obeyed? Is it as big a thing to them as to whether you have - say - a maker's postcode on your registration plate as whether you drive at 45 in a rural ex-NSL 40?

My point being that they don't need to take a stance on everything. But from the outside, it does seem that rigid adherence to the speed limit is something which they do take quite a striking pose on. Perhaps to the detriment of people who would like to take instruction to drive more safely but can't get past the speed kills message.

A further example from today.

I have cause to employ and contract drivers and removals companies. Today's muppet turned up without a tail-lift so we needed to get into a separate facility to have a forklift crack it.

He drove me over there.

Oh my god. I'm not a nervous passenger, but I confess to closing my eyes and thinking of Stressed Dave's reassuring calculations about relative momentum in collisions.

As his contracting manager was I negligent, complicit or guilty in not stopping him?

7db wrote:As his contracting manager was I negligent, complicit or guilty in not stopping him?

I can see the argument where there is a relationship in which one person or entity holds power over another person, but where that is not the case, I'd be surprised if a prosecution could be mounted.

In the case that Von initially mentioned, where a manager in a business can turn a blind eye to the law breaking by the drivers because it benefits either the business, (profits), or the manager, (bonuses), then I can imagine a prosecution taking place.

On the other hand, where there is no financial or other material benefit, such as with an IAM or RoADAR observer, I have trouble imagining that a prosecution would be seriously entertained.

To answer 7db's question, I doubt that 7db was negligent in not stopping the dodgy driver, however I do question his sanity

vonhosen wrote:http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/dcsc/news/News030704.htm

Interesting, but hardly the same an an unpaid IAM or RoADAR observer, is it?

A driving instructor is paid to take responsibility for teaching someone to drive. Many, if not most[1], have dual controls so the ADI can over-ride the pupil in circumstances such as the one in which this particular ADI was prosecuted.

Neither of these factors apply when IAM or RoADAR observers go out with associates who are hoping to improve their driving.



[1] The DSA claim that over 94% of cars used by ADI's for teaching are fitted with dual controls.

Gareth wrote:

vonhosen wrote:http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/dcsc/news/News030704.htm

Interesting, but hardly the same an an unpaid IAM or RoADAR observer, is it?

A driving instructor is paid to take responsibility for teaching someone to drive. Many, if not most[1], have dual controls so the ADI can over-ride the pupil in circumstances such as the one in which this particular ADI was prosecuted.

Neither of these factors apply when IAM or RoADAR observers go out with associates who are hoping to improve their driving.



[1] The DSA claim that over 94% of cars used by ADI's for teaching are fitted with dual controls.

It isn't just confined to payment, people who allow others to drive their vehicle's in the knowledge they are commiting offences get prosecuted & convicted of aiding & abetting. Offences such as no insurance. The same principles apply for other traffic offences, payment is not a requirement of proof.

Gareth wrote:Interesting, but hardly the same an an unpaid IAM or RoADAR observer, is it?

No. In addition to the differences you mention, the driver in this case was a learner, so greatly increasing the level of responsibility of the person supervising the session whether that person is paid for it or not.

I am slightly surprised that the charge was aiding and abetting, as I would have expected that a more direct charge would be available against a driver supervising a learner.

hpcdriver wrote:

Gareth wrote:Interesting, but hardly the same an an unpaid IAM or RoADAR observer, is it?

No. In addition to the differences you mention, the driver in this case was a learner, so greatly increasing the level of responsibility of the person supervising the session whether that person is paid for it or not.

I am slightly surprised that the charge was aiding and abetting, as I would have expected that a more direct charge would be available against a driver supervising a learner.

I think that with a driver prosecuted for speeding by a decent margin & that driver saying "But the person teaching me said it was OK as long as I was safe" followed by "And he didn't tell me to slow down at all, it's an advanced driving course after all" you may find yourself on dodgy ground.