If your friend's such a good driver and wants to drive on his own he should get his fucking drivers license.

If your friend got in an accident regardless of WHO caused it he would be liable at least to some degree as he's also in violation (driving with out a license). And as others have said above it's very likely charges could be brought against him. I don't think at 17 or what ever you really understand what an impact having a criminal record or a potential driving ban can have on your life.

You can call me old all you like but that doesn't change the fact that the kid is flagrantly breaking the law. The law doesn't give a shit how uncool it is to have to have your mommy in the car with you while you drive or how hot your date is on Saturday night or how you'd rather break the law then take the bus.

in the end, the "worst case scenario" probably wont be even as bad as people are saying here if he does get into an accident

ICBC and the cops are so fucking lax on shit like this, I know of like 4-5 situations that are wayyyy worse than this that happened to people i personally know, and they ended up getting out of it owing under the cost of damages, no money for the other party, and basically driving again in under a year when under the circumstances you would think the situation would result in a lifetime ban.

people i know of got busted for DUI 2-3 times, driving without a licence at least 2-3 more times during that probation period under non-family members insurance, get into accidents without a liscence/personal insurance, and those people are now back on the road today.

Not really.

http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...src=ref&ch=dic
"to take back or withdraw; annul, cancel, or reverse; rescind or repeal"

http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...src=ref&ch=dic
"to cause to cease for a time from operation or effect, as a law, rule, privilege, service, or the like: to suspend ferry service.

"to debar, usually for a limited time, from the exercise of an office or function or the enjoyment of a privilege: The student was suspended from school."

^ oops, wrong symbol LOL

it was supposed to be revoked>suspend.

If you really want to operate on the assumption that because some other people anecdotally got away with all kinds of stupid shit, it's okay for you to do the same kind of stupid shit, then you're an even bigger idiot than the OP's cousin.

Hey, I know someone who shot himself in the face with a 12-gauge and didn't even get hurt... maybe you should do the same thing! Come on, it'll be fine, nothing bad will happen!

Heheheh, nice backpedaling :fullofwin:

i try, i try. I'd make a good corporate criminal one day :agree:

extra cautious and less reckless doesn't mean other people on the streets are safe drivers..

it may only seem fun for so long until something happens and someone gets hurt. it doesn't matter who is at fault in the accident as well, he didn't have his drivers license.

i wont curse the kid and hope he gets into an accident, and i'm not questioning his driving skills BUT who knows? Who's to say good drivers don't get into accidents? He should just stop driving alone with his L, saves a lot of people a lot of problems.

not really. i never heard stories of the worst case scenarios that were written on here, but i have heard plenty of L (solo driving) + accident = no charges/not automatic fault

being at-fault = different story.

question: is there a specific statement on this particular restriction that ur insurance is void/automatic fault in violating it/crash? or is it just the fact that ur not following one of the restrictions on ur license?
if latter than,
would u be automatically at fault if u got rear ended (100% not ur fault)but u werent wearing corrective glasses?
99.9% unlikely

Did I say I was doing that stuff?

No, you didn't. You sure do seem to be advocating the concept, though.

it's more than i'm choked that as a good driver, people who are shit/irresponsible morons usually get off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist for something that imo should result in 10 year + driving bans

If you look at the back of your ICBC policy sheet in the red square box and read point number 3..."may invalidate the certificate"...that says that ICBC will not cover you if you are breaking the law, if they choose...and you know they will when an unlicenced ( learner with no supervisor) driver crashes.

It's probably too late, but there is a very real legal loophole in this scenario. If your cousin was eligible to take his N test at anytime before the crash, that is, he had finished his L term already, he has one and ONLY one chance to get everything covered by ICBC and washed away. The chance is that he must take the next available N test ASAP, and pass it on the first and only try. If he passes the test ICBC will be lenient and consider him an eligible driver at the time of the accident and provide full coverage, although his premiums will go up. Should he fail, ICBC will not cover a cent, not pay for the damages to his car, and not pay for the damages to the other party (vehicle and bodily injuries). Due to the tremendous pressure to pass the N test in such a circumstance, I highly recommend against this approach.

The danger in this kind of advice is that "being lenient" is a judgement call, and there's at least as good a chance they WON'T be, and the ploy will fail. Just because they did it once for someone you know, doesn't mean anyone there will care to do it again, ever.

The core argument here is that someone who is such a bad/inexperienced driver that he can't even pass/has not yet passed his L road test.....is such a good driver that he knows he will be able to avoid all crashes because of his advanced driving skills? and he is ready to break the law to prove this???? Do we have this correct?

Wow you're hardcore
Posted via RS Mobile

:failed:
just cause you have done it doesn't mean you should go around advertising it

This is totally true. I believe they require you to produce an N--pass the class 7 test--within a very short period of time (5 days I believe) to be eligible for coverage. Failing means paying up as there's a two-week wait to retake the test.

And while I believe there're loads of people, who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a vehicle, have full licenses or N licenses, it's dangerous to drive alone in a L. There are very few competent L drivers.

The guy should just simply stop driving alone with an L because it's pretty stupid to do that. And if he cause an accident, there're drivers on the other side who would get hurt. You don't feel sick wishing him "learn his lesson by getting into an accident"? He needs to be educated but not that way.

I'd be curious to hear what the actual percentage of people who go this route actually pass the test. Most people don't past their N on the first try; factor in that the person is an idiot, was just in a car accident and is under massive pressure to pass and I doubt thats a viable option for many people.

lol is that bill nye the science guy

Yup :D