teaching someone who has an L

[zulutango]

....kinda like deja vu....all over again?

[Soundy]

I thought deja vu meant something had been changed in The Matrix?

[Coren]

Originally Posted by zulutango

As you would be her supervisor you would be considered to have "Care & control" of the vehicle and would be held legally responsible for anything she may do as a result of what could happen. I have charged drunk passengers with impaired driving, while they were acting as supervisors for learner drivers. As the post above said...why are you wanting to expose both of you, and anyone else who may be affected in a crash, to possible danger? Why not wait and the problem is solved? The fact you posted this here shows you know you should not do what you want us to bless.

Sorry but I was just reading a news article today and remembered this thread. In it was this

The Ministry of Justice confirmed in a statement Friday that there is no legislative requirement for qualified supervisors to be sober.

Seems you have been incorrectly charging people.

Article in spoiler box

Spoiler!

A grandfather who lost his licence for riding drunk in the passenger seat of his car is seeking compensation for the three months he was wrongly barred from driving.

Mounties admitted last fall it was an error to give Peter Norman — a 65-year-old pensioner from Sorrento, near Salmon Arm — a roadside prohibition for drinking a few beers before letting his grandson drive his car on a learner’s licence.

The arrangement meant Norman was a qualified supervisor at the time, a position police equated to driver when they made him blow into a breathalyzer and then issued him an instant roadside prohibition in June of last year.

Norman protested the prohibition to the RCMP and the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, but both parties stood by the decision — until Oct. 31, 2013, when Stephanie Melvin, the deputy superintendent, wrote Norman a letter.

“We have now been advised by E Division Traffic Services in Surrey that the (prohibition) was issued to you in error ... you no longer have an unsatisfactory driving record,” it read.

The letter said Norman would be refunded the fees he had wrongly paid in six to eight weeks time, minus any outstanding fines or debts he had to the province.

Absent from the letter, apart from any hint of an apology, was mention of compensation for the three months Norman spent without a vehicle. “I was stuck in the house the whole summer and into the fall,” said Norman, who relied on his daughter and others for rides to the grocery store and the bank. Norman said he contacted a lawyer, drew up a list of expenses he had incurred as a result of the inconvenience and then sent it to the ministry, seeking compensation. Among the items was hundreds of dollars in lost income for cords of firewood he had arranged to cut and deliver to customers.

The claim was denied, but Norman said he’s not done fighting.

“I’m not out there for blood,” he said, adding that he just wants to be repaid for his losses.

But perhaps the most galling expense for Norman has been something money can’t buy.

“For the first time in 20-some years I got a moose draw and I couldn’t go,” he said. “The likelihood of me getting that again before I drop dead, I don’t know.”

The Ministry of Justice confirmed in a statement Friday that there is no legislative requirement for qualified supervisors to be sober.

Anyone who believes they have been wrongly issued an immediate roadside prohibition can apply for a review hearing.

Place I got article from Drunk grandpa gets driving record cleared

[underscore]

Hold up a sec, now they're saying you can be shitfaced and be a supervisor? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of, if the supervisor doesn't have to be able to drive what the hell is the point of a supervisor?

[Rich Sandor]

No.. the point of the article is that an impaired driving charge is not meant to apply to a supervisor. If your supervisor is impaired, it should equate to a charge to the L driver for driving without a qualified supervisor.

Cops can come of with all kinds of creative applications for a charge.. it doesnt mean it'll always stick.

[zulutango]

I think that this particular situation is the overturning of the Provincial MV Act action and not the Criminal Code impairment aspect. The "breathalyzer" is not used at roadside, only a screening device and the article says that it was an immediate roadside suspension. The 2 convictions involving impaired passengers & learner drivers I was involved with, were for Criminal Code charges where the passenger went back to the Cop Shop for the actual breath test, not at roadside on an RSD


Care & Control of a Motor Vehicle While Impaired | DriveSmartBC

WHAT IS MEANT BY "CARE AND CONTROL"?

A person may be in care and control of a motor vehicle if the person has the ability to set the vehicle in motion, or where there is a risk that the person could put the vehicle in motion either on purpose or by accident and become a danger to the public.



If someone is found in the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle, care and control is presumed unless it can be shown that he or she did not occupy that seat for the purpose of setting the vehicle in motion. But, even if the person is not in the driver’s seat (ex: sitting in the passenger’s seat), if it is proven that he or she was using the motor vehicle in such a way that it may be set in motion, that person may still be found to be in care and control. So, there is a danger of being found guilty even if a person is just sleeping in a motor vehicle. It may even be possible to find someone in care and control of a motor vehicle who is simply near the motor vehicle and has the ability to set it into motion


I think the questions must be answered...IF the learner can have a supervisor who is impaired teaching them to drive then why do they need one at all? If the condition of the supervisor is immaterial then why do they have to have a Dl for the learner's class, and in the case of a motorcycle, be able to be seen by the supervisor at all times? If the law recognizes that any level of impairment is illegal for a driver, if a driver can be considered in control if the vehicle can be set in motion, even unintentionally, then why is it OK to have them deciding what the learner drivers does?

[underscore]

Originally Posted by Rich Sandor

No.. the point of the article is that an impaired driving charge is not meant to apply to a supervisor. If your supervisor is impaired, it should equate to a charge to the L driver for driving without a qualified supervisor.

Cops can come of with all kinds of creative applications for a charge.. it doesnt mean it'll always stick.

Did you miss this part?

The Ministry of Justice confirmed in a statement Friday that there is no legislative requirement for qualified supervisors to be sober.

So according to them, you can supervise while drunk. Like Zulu said, what's the point of requiring a supervisor if the supervisor can be impaired? An impaired supervisor is about as useful as not having one.

[zulutango]

One would have to think that somebody at the AG/MVB will be discussing this to some up with a solution. Like Skidmark says on his website, convictions have been registered under the Criminal code for this...I believe it may be a provincial MV Act problem, not the CC? The CC does not require supervisors, the MV Act does as it is a provincial jurisdiction area...the CC prohibits impaired/care & control of a motor vehicle.

[$_$]

I think you guys are all making a huge deal out of nothing.

Driving is not rocket science. Cousin's daughter is trying to learn to drive, not do brain surgery. The possibility of a seizure happening within the tiny window of him teaching her to drive is slim to none. That's like saying, That guy is 60 and have had a heart attack in the past, guess he better not teach his granddaughter how to drive. Wtf? A quick heads up to the student before the class starts "hey, there's a small possibility that I might have a seizure while we are out there, if that happens just put your hazards on and pull over to the side as safely as possible and call 911, can you do that?" Yes? Okay lets go. Anything can happen at any time. If she can't follow simple instructions like that then she shouldn't be on the road.

The guy isn't asking for you guys opinion on whether he should - he wants to. He's asking if he's legally allowed to.

All you guys are posting are cases where the passenger was acting like an idiot. If he's legally allowed to drive he should be legally allowed to teach. No judge is going to find him criminally/negligible/responsible for having a seizure while teaching a family member to drive, just like he won't be criminally responsible if he got into an accident if he's clear to drive after 6 months

[zulutango]

He has been given the opinions that IF he is legally entitled to have a class 5DL and he is over 25 then he can supervise.

As far as this comment goes, I guess your experience with the Cdn legal and Civil Court system supercedes my 28 years in it. I have given my opinion on this as well.

No judge is going to find him criminally/negligible/responsible for having a seizure while teaching a family member to drive,

Telling the student that before a crash will not absolve him of responsibility, in fact it will likely be considered even more disregard for safety. If you don't believe me, ask a personal injury lawyer. I also spend some time as an expert witness in Supreme Court tesifying on crash injury claims. I have spent the last 5 years teaching students to drive in cars equipped with an extra brake, extra mirrors and have had specific training in what to do to protect me & the student from trouble if they freak out....and some do.

To expect an untrained young teen in a non-equipped car to overcome a potential loss of control due to a medical crisis is rediculous and shows a lack of knowledge or experience on your behalf and assumes the crisis will happen on a nice straight road with little or no traffic around. How about the seizure happens half way thru Kingsway & Willingdon in traffic, or in the process of passing a transport truck? But then, what do I know anyway...I only have 28 years Traffic experience and have been teaching driving/riding since 1993?

[underscore]

Originally Posted by $_$

All you guys are posting are cases where the passenger was acting like an idiot. If he's legally allowed to drive he should be legally allowed to teach. No judge is going to find him criminally/negligible/responsible for having a seizure while teaching a family member to drive, just like he won't be criminally responsible if he got into an accident if he's clear to drive after 6 months

The question is if he is legally allowed to drive or not. If you cannot legally drive you shouldn't be supervising, and it's pretty negligent to supervise while you're not allowed to be driving.

[stewie]

Zulu, in your opinion, do you find/think people with epilepsy shouldn't be driving period? Even if seizures are 10 years apart, but always a chance of coming back?

[$_$]

Originally Posted by underscore

The question is if he is legally allowed to drive or not. If you cannot legally drive you shouldn't be supervising, and it's pretty negligent to supervise while you're not allowed to be driving.

He said he was legally allowed to drive

Originally Posted by zulutango

He has been given the opinions that IF he is legally entitled to have a class 5DL and he is over 25 then he can supervise.

As far as this comment goes, I guess your experience with the Cdn legal and Civil Court system supercedes my 28 years in it. I have given my opinion on this as well.

No judge is going to find him criminally/negligible/responsible for having a seizure while teaching a family member to drive,

Telling the student that before a crash will not absolve him of responsibility, in fact it will likely be considered even more disregard for safety. If you don't believe me, ask a personal injury lawyer. I also spend some time as an expert witness in Supreme Court tesifying on crash injury claims. I have spent the last 5 years teaching students to drive in cars equipped with an extra brake, extra mirrors and have had specific training in what to do to protect me & the student from trouble if they freak out....and some do.

To expect an untrained young teen in a non-equipped car to overcome a potential loss of control due to a medical crisis is rediculous and shows a lack of knowledge or experience on your behalf and assumes the crisis will happen on a nice straight road with little or no traffic around. How about the seizure happens half way thru Kingsway & Willingdon in traffic, or in the process of passing a transport truck? But then, what do I know anyway...I only have 28 years Traffic experience and have been teaching driving/riding since 1993?

Originally Posted by stewie

Zulu, in your opinion, do you find/think people with epilepsy shouldn't be driving period? Even if seizures are 10 years apart, but always a chance of coming back?

I have the same question: asthma attack, heart attack, panic attack, seizure? Hell, if you have any kind of medical condition that does not affect you on a daily basis but inherently might occur under certain conditions or spontaneously? These people should just stop driving altogether? If that's the case then anyone over 45 probably shouldn't be driving. Anyone over 55 or 60 definitely should not be driving then?

[stewie]

Originally Posted by $_$

I have the same question: asthma attack, heart attack, panic attack, seizure? Hell, if you have any kind of medical condition that does not affect you on a daily basis but inherently might occur under certain conditions or spontaneously? These people should just stop driving altogether? If that's the case then anyone over 45 probably shouldn't be driving. Anyone over 55 or 60 definitely should not be driving then?

thats exactly what i was getting at.

because as zulu said about him having 28 years in his profession, unless he has seizures -he has absolutely 0 experience in it, same as me having 0 in police/law/court. sure you can read book after book, or interview person after person, but it'll never be the same as actually experiencing it. its not an instant "lights out, time to seize up". go stare at a strobe light for half an hour and see if it can bring one on to experience one if you want lol. but IF i have one, i can simply be warned by the pre seizures(deja vu) and have ample time to sit down, lay down, or whatever it is i need to do, and IF it was to happen, its a 10-15 second black out, not convulsing. hell, even a seizure response dog can be trained to bark at the owner up to 30 minutes PRIOR to having a seizure.

[$_$]

Originally Posted by stewie

thats exactly what i was getting at.

because as zulu said about him having 28 years in his profession, unless he has seizures -he has absolutely 0 experience in it, same as me having 0 in police/law/court. sure you can read book after book, or interview person after person, but it'll never be the same as actually experiencing it. its not an instant "lights out, time to seize up". go stare at a strobe light for half an hour and see if it can bring one on to experience one if you want lol. but IF i have one, i can simply be warned by the pre seizures(deja vu) and have ample time to sit down, lay down, or whatever it is i need to do, and IF it was to happen, its a 10-15 second black out, not convulsing. hell, even a seizure response dog can be trained to bark at the owner up to 30 minutes PRIOR to having a seizure.

Yeah... I've had female friends who get severe cramps SOMETIMES when they are on their period to the point of collapsing. I guess they should stop driving as well.....

[underscore]

Originally Posted by $_$

I have the same question: asthma attack, heart attack, panic attack, seizure? Hell, if you have any kind of medical condition that does not affect you on a daily basis but inherently might occur under certain conditions or spontaneously? These people should just stop driving altogether? If that's the case then anyone over 45 probably shouldn't be driving. Anyone over 55 or 60 definitely should not be driving then?

He was a bit fuzzy on the legality of him driving.

If you've got a medical condition that can pop up spontaneously you should probably have you ability to drive reviewed by a doctor. Driving is a privilege, not a right, so if you can't ensure you can drive safely then you shouldn't be driving.

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by stewie

thats exactly what i was getting at.

because as zulu said about him having 28 years in his profession, unless he has seizures -he has absolutely 0 experience in it, same as me having 0 in police/law/court. sure you can read book after book, or interview person after person, but it'll never be the same as actually experiencing it. its not an instant "lights out, time to seize up". go stare at a strobe light for half an hour and see if it can bring one on to experience one if you want lol. but IF i have one, i can simply be warned by the pre seizures(deja vu) and have ample time to sit down, lay down, or whatever it is i need to do, and IF it was to happen, its a 10-15 second black out, not convulsing. hell, even a seizure response dog can be trained to bark at the owner up to 30 minutes PRIOR to having a seizure.

My personal experience with seizures was limited to attending the resulting crashes. One here where I live involved a driver who had previously experienced 3 seizures but had kept driving. The last one was on a 4 lane street in the middle of the weekday. The driver jammed the accelerator to the floor, speeding up to more than double the limit, missing a head-on crash with a PC containing two officers by literally inches, leaving the road to the right side of a downhill curve, went airborne off a bank, hit a power line as she fell (this flipped the truck 360 degrees) & the truck landed on its wheels on the roof of a store below the bank. Pictures made the local papers. This was the 4th seizure the driver had had while driving. I believe the driver was charged for the crash but as it was more than 25 years ago I can't remember what exactly for.

I also have attended others that resulted from various medical conditions. The common thread was that there had been previous seizures, some while driving, the drivers knew there was a possibility that they could happen again but chose to continue to drive. In spite of this they could not prevent the seizures while driving, nor could they control the vehicle when it happened. This is the danger. If drivers are either 100% sure they will never loose control due to that medical condition, or are prepaired to risk it out, then they will likely continue to drive.

[meme405]

Originally Posted by zulutango

My personal experience with seizures was limited to attending the resulting crashes. One here where I live involved a driver who had previously experienced 3 seizures but had kept driving. The last one was on a 4 lane street in the middle of the weekday. The driver jammed the accelerator to the floor, speeding up to more than double the limit, missing a head-on crash with a PC containing two officers by literally inches, leaving the road to the right side of a downhill curve, went airborne off a bank, hit a power line as she fell (this flipped the truck 360 degrees) & the truck landed on its wheels on the roof of a store below the bank. Pictures made the local papers. This was the 4th seizure the driver had had while driving. I believe the driver was charged for the crash but as it was more than 25 years ago I can't remember what exactly for.

I also have attended others that resulted from various medical conditions. The common thread was that there had been previous seizures, some while driving, the drivers knew there was a possibility that they could happen again but chose to continue to drive. In spite of this they could not prevent the seizures while driving, nor could they control the vehicle when it happened. This is the danger. If drivers are either 100% sure they will never loose control due to that medical condition, or are prepaired to risk it out, then they will likely continue to drive.

My grandfather and father both have heart conditions, and by that same luck I am genetically predisposed to having a heart attack. It could happen at any time or it could never happen.

By your logic I should never drive, and live in a plastic bubble because of this possibility?

Sorry buddy, but the remote chance of a seizure or medical emergency is not going to stop most people from driving. Nobody is going to give up their life because of the possibility of an emergency.

How about those people that don't have legs and they drive in specialized vehicles by manipulating the pedals with their hands? Are you going to try and argue to me that they pose a danger to others because they don't have as much control over the vehicle?

Spoiler!

Maybe the plastic bubble is an exaggeration, I should go and live inside the hospital so that when I do finally have that heart attack, the doctors are right there for me.

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by meme405

My grandfather and father both have heart conditions, and by that same luck I am genetically predisposed to having a heart attack. It could happen at any time or it could never happen.

By your logic I should never drive, and live in a plastic bubble because of this possibility?

Sorry buddy, but the remote chance of a seizure or medical emergency is not going to stop most people from driving. Nobody is going to give up their life because of the possibility of an emergency.

How about those people that don't have legs and they drive in specialized vehicles by manipulating the pedals with their hands? Are you going to try and argue to me that they pose a danger to others because they don't have as much control over the vehicle?

Spoiler!

Maybe the plastic bubble is an exaggeration, I should go and live inside the hospital so that when I do finally have that heart attack, the doctors are right there for me.

If you re-read the post above and avoid the hyperbole you find that I am saying nothing of the sort.

[$_$]

Originally Posted by zulutango

If you re-read the post above and avoid the hyperbole you find that I am saying nothing of the sort.

In the first couple examples you posted, it is not the same as stewie's situation, so how is it the same? He has never been in any seizure related accidents, yet you are pretty much talking down to him and saying that he would be immensely irresponsible for what equates to driving (being in control of a vehicle).

What we are imploring you is, is it your opinion then that people that do not pose the type of high risk possibility such as the examples you posted, should not be driving period? People with pre-disposition to heart conditions, and in this case, stewie who is cleared legally to drive

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by $_$

In the first couple examples you posted, it is not the same as stewie's situation, so how is it the same? He has never been in any seizure related accidents, yet you are pretty much talking down to him and saying that he would be immensely irresponsible for what equates to driving (being in control of a vehicle).

What we are imploring you is, is it your opinion then that people that do not pose the type of high risk possibility such as the examples you posted, should not be driving period? People with pre-disposition to heart conditions, and in this case, stewie who is cleared legally to drive

I was refering to meme405's post.

In response to your question here...I spent 28 years assessing risk and investigating what happens when people ignore that risk. IF one decides to ignore risk and something happens, there are consequences for that deliberate ignoring of the risk.

As to what level the OP is risking...nobody but the OP knows that. They can do what they will do with the knowledge of their condition...ignore it...or 'risk it out'. If nothing happens then things are OK after all...if something does happen, then I guess there are possible consequences. However much you may wish that I give my blessing, it will not happen and I have given my reasons why. If I were in the position that the OP has stated he is in, based on my own experience I personally would not choose to drive or to expose someone else to the possible consequences, however small or large they may be....but that is me...and they are who they are...and they will do what they will do. Thus endith the lesson.

[stewie]

Originally Posted by zulutango

As to what level the OP is risking...nobody but the OP knows that. They can do what they will do with the knowledge of their condition...ignore it...or 'risk it out'. If nothing happens then things are OK after all...if something does happen, then I guess there are possible consequences. However much you may wish that I give my blessing, it will not happen and I have given my reasons why. If I were in the position that the OP has stated he is in, based on my own experience I personally would not choose to drive or to expose someone else to the possible consequences, however small or large they may be....but that is me...and they are who they are...and they will do what they will do. Thus endith the lesson.

with that being said, me having epilepsy is only occurring due to the fact that there's a growth in my brain that's putting pressure on everything, and its getting ripped out in sept. via open craniotomy. once removed, all should be well. I'll have to reset and redo the 6 months again, but after that I'm allowed to drive. however as a safety measure I need to stay on anti convulsants for 2 years, after which they are tapered off and finished with.

im not asking for your blessing, i was asking if i can teach my cousin to drive and to do it legally without one day end up being pulled over for some random reason only for a cop to say "oh, you have epilepsy, yeah but no, you have a license but your not allowed to drive".

you've given me your opinion, which i appreciate, but now i question it, and im sure if you were in your mid to late 20's and put in my scenario, you'd do the same. especially if your career as a police officer was shot down the drain overnight. one day your an officer, the next day you have a seizure and find out you have epilepsy and can now no longer stay as an officer. granted they could probably accommodate you to a clerical position, which my work has done for me...but its not where you want to be, but you'll take it for now. especially for me, since my job used to involve working with a great group of guys, using chain saws/chop saws/grinders/and me working with and operating heavy machinery...now stuck in an office tapping away on excel and editing pdf files all day.

again, im not asking for your blessing, i know its a "risk" just as much as you knew working everyday as a cop was a risk with the possibility of being shot at. you were willing to make that risk, just as im willing to make my "risk". i know i can drive, im just wondering if i can also ride as a passenger while instructing.

[slammer111]

*