Driving without an license VS driving with an "L" but no supervision

[ZzLiFezZ]

Hi,

I searched the forums and could not shed light on the following:

Scenario 1
"Is there an difference between driving without a license vs driving with an "L" but no supervision?"

From the posts and tell-tales from others. Driving without a license is a serious offence. Possible criminal record, 1000+ in fines, car towed, etc...

However, it seems that driving with an "L" but no supervision = a slap on the wrist: $500 or so in fines, car towed and impounded for X amount of days.... once they get their car back, they're back on the road.

In my perspective, driving without an license and driving with an L (no supervision) is the same thing. The driver does not have the qualification to drive, or is this a case by case situation?

Scenario 2
Driving while prohibited
If caught driving while prohibited, is the offence greater then driving without an license?

Scenario 2b
Driving while prohibited part 2
ICBC sends "notice of prohibit" to the driver
Driver did not receive the letter
Gets caught
Would the driver have the benefit of the doubt that he did not receive the letters and "start" the probation on that day?
Of course I could see some fines involved and car being towed, But would it affect his license? Would that make his probation longer?

Thanks

[simsimi1004]

if u get into a crash probation/license/fines/towing is the least of your worries.
if a crash occurs during these scenerios, = No insurance = you lose everything. life gone byebye.

for scenerio 2b, happened to a friend. he didnt know. after the cop pulled him over he had to get someone to drive the car iirc.

[ZzLiFezZ]

I understand that in all the scenarios, that ICBC will not cover any damage.

I'm wondering, if you get pulled over for speeding (assume)
How'd the Police Officer deal with the scenario if A) driving without an license vs B) driving with an "L" (no supervision)

From my understanding, there is a lot of people that are driving with an "L" and are just getting a slap on the wrist when caught with speeding. But I see driving with an L the same as driving without an license. So why does driving without an license have a lighter punishment then driving with an L (no supervision)?

Then for Scenario 2b, your friend surrendered his license and started his probation on that day?

[sho_bc]

Originally Posted by ZzLiFezZ

Hi,

I searched the forums and could not shed light on the following:

Scenario 1
"Is there an difference between driving without a license vs driving with an "L" but no supervision?"

From the posts and tell-tales from others. Driving without a license is a serious offence. Possible criminal record, 1000+ in fines, car towed, etc...

However, it seems that driving with an "L" but no supervision = a slap on the wrist: $500 or so in fines, car towed and impounded for X amount of days.... once they get their car back, they're back on the road.

In my perspective, driving without an license and driving with an L (no supervision) is the same thing. The driver does not have the qualification to drive, or is this a case by case situation?

Unfortunately, driving without a licence isn't going to give you all of that. Nor does having an "L" and driving without a qualified supervisor.

The number of/amount of fines given will vary for each case, depending on the situation. The vehicle doesn't get impounded unless the driver is a vehicle impound candidate, it just gets towed.

Scenario 2
Driving while prohibited
If caught driving while prohibited, is the offence greater then driving without an license?

Yes. When caught driving while prohibited, you get arrested and charged for driving while prohibited. That charge can be a provincial motor vehicle act charge if thats what you're prohibited under, or a criminal charge if you're prohibited under the criminal code. You also have that vehicle impounded for 30 days (though the Superintendent may decide to impound for longer) whether or not its your car.

Scenario 2b
Driving while prohibited part 2
ICBC sends "notice of prohibit" to the driver
Driver did not receive the letter
Gets caught
Would the driver have the benefit of the doubt that he did not receive the letters and "start" the probation on that day?
Of course I could see some fines involved and car being towed, But would it affect his license? Would that make his probation longer?

If my screen/ICBC tells me you're prohibited, no benefit of the doubt - you're prohibited and getting all the above.

If you're to be served a notice of prohibition, I serve that and if the car can not be driven away (by a licenced passenger), it gets towed.

FYI, all methods of phrasing scenario 2 have been answered several times in various threads.

[ZzLiFezZ]

I'm just very curious at why the law is more lenient for people with an L vs people without an license.

A person with an L, with X amount of passengers all without a valid class 5 nor 25yrs old... Gets caught speeding, just gets a slap on the wrist

A person without a license gets caught speeding = more serious.

Why ?

A person with an L without the proper supervision is RESTRICTED to drive, hence isn't that the same as driving without an license?

[sho_bc]

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, and you definitely didn't read my previous post. For both situations, all you get is Violation Ticket(s). The only differences that I can think of, come at the Superintendent level in the form of Vehicle Impound Candidate vs Prohibited (from driving).

The Superintendent of Motor Vehicles will usually make people continuously caught driving without a licence a Vehicle Impound Candidate, and those caught driving contrary to their restrictions (L and N drivers) Prohibited drivers.

At that point, you can get charged for driving while prohibited if caught as a prohibited driver with a 30 day minimum vehicle impound vs 30 minimum vehicle impound as a Vehicle Impound Candidate.

Again, in both cases (prior to being a prohib driver or a VI candidate) result in Violation tickets and vehicles being towed only.

[sho_bc]

Originally Posted by ZzLiFezZ

A person with an L without the proper supervision is RESTRICTED to drive, hence isn't that the same as driving without an license?

Technically speaking, yes. However, re-read my posts regarding punishments.

[skidmark]

Originally Posted by ZzLiFezZ

So why does driving without an license have a lighter punishment then driving with an L (no supervision)?

Because that's the way the lawmakers decided it should be.

[1exotic]

Why do these Scenario's matter? if your driving and don't have a licence or even driving with an L whatever punishment that person gets is deserved.

[hchang]

A bit off topic... but I thought about this question last week.

What happens if I hit another car, but the driver of the other car does not have a valid license, or only has an L without supervision.

Pretend it was my fault that I hit the person, and the person wasn't a rich FOB who just offered me money to keep quiet.

[no_clue]

you crash your car in any of those scenarios and ICBC will lol while denying you coverage. You injure someone, and you'll be bankrupt for the rest of your life.

Worth it?

[mb_]

Sorry for thread jacking but I didn't wanna make another thread...

Let's say I get into an accident (not at fault) and I'm driving (I have my N) my dad's car. I'm not listed as a principle driver in his insurance or something like that. Would ICBC cover our asses or will they rape us?

[sho_bc]

If you have permission to drive it, and ICBC is sure that you're not the actual primary driver (ie. insuring it under your dad's name to safe on insurance costs) and there are no age/driver experience restrictions on the insurance, you should be covered.

[ZzLiFezZ]

Ahh.. Great, thanks for the input.

The topic just came up in my head, when I heard that there was some friends that drive with an "L" all the time...
They drive around with an L license and no supervision because they think that waiting for an year for a "N" is too long of an wait.
Also, is there an way to report these people? Say, report the make and license plate of the car to the authority to have their license taken away? I think it would be best for the public's safety.

[seekerbeta]

Originally Posted by sho_bc

If you have permission to drive it, and ICBC is sure that you're not the actual primary driver (ie. insuring it under your dad's name to safe on insurance costs) and there are no age/driver experience restrictions on the insurance, you should be covered.

Unless he has the "Driver Must Have 10+ Years Experience to drive said vehicle" roadstar safe driving thing.. then you get azz raped

[slammer111]

Bottom line: obey the rules.

[sekin67835]

Originally Posted by hchang

A bit off topic... but I thought about this question last week.

What happens if I hit another car, but the driver of the other car does not have a valid license, or only has an L without supervision.

Pretend it was my fault that I hit the person, and the person wasn't a rich FOB who just offered me money to keep quiet.

If i were the L i would keep it quiet and just ask you for your insurance info/DL info.
than use someone elses name to report

[hchang]

Originally Posted by sekin67835

If i were the L i would keep it quiet and just ask you for your insurance info/DL info.
than use someone elses name to report

Well I'd obviously take down their insurance info and also their Drivers License info as well, so that doesn't really work

[mb_]

Originally Posted by sho_bc

If you have permission to drive it, and ICBC is sure that you're not the actual primary driver (ie. insuring it under your dad's name to safe on insurance costs) and there are no age/driver experience restrictions on the insurance, you should be covered.

Originally Posted by seekerbeta

Unless he has the "Driver Must Have 10+ Years Experience to drive said vehicle" roadstar safe driving thing.. then you get azz raped

Was looking good till i read the 10 years thing on my dad's insurance. I hope I don't run into an idiot driver until my dad gets this sorted out!

[Gumby]

The 10 years experience thing applies to the car, not to the driver(s). The wording is "owner, principal operator and all members of their households who drive the vehicle must have had a valid driver's license for 10 years or more".

My car has this listed on its insurance policy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my sister, who doesn't have 10 years experience, CAN drive it (as much as 50% of the time) because she doesn't live in the same household as me. I am the principal operator, and the car is registered to my address, which is different from hers.

[simsimi1004]

if i was a cop, technically L w/o supervision vs no L; their both not allowed to drive, i would be lenient on the person with at least an L compared to someone who has no way of proving their basic knowledge of how to drive.

[ruthless]

you said it applies to the car not the driver(s) but then you say your sister can drive because she doesnt live in the same household(address) but she doesnt have 10 years of experience...I think it applies to whoever drives the car has to have 10+years of driving experience...ICBC screwed me over because our agent left the 10 year experience thing on one of our cars while taking it off the other car (yea i know we should have read through it more thoroughly, but learned the hard way), and I get into an accident (car was under dads name, and had 10 year experience thingy) so now I have to pay a 40% premium on top of the insurance which sucks

[iambeetle]

Originally Posted by sho_bc

Yes. When caught driving while prohibited, you get arrested and charged for driving while prohibited. That charge can be a provincial motor vehicle act charge if thats what you're prohibited under, or a criminal charge if you're prohibited under the criminal code. You also have that vehicle impounded for 30 days (though the Superintendent may decide to impound for longer) whether or not its your car.

Can you please tell me how do I know if I am prohibited under a provincial motor vehicle act, or criminal code?

Thanks!

[mb_]

Originally Posted by Gumby

The 10 years experience thing applies to the car, not to the driver(s). The wording is "owner, principal operator and all members of their households who drive the vehicle must have had a valid driver's license for 10 years or more".

My car has this listed on its insurance policy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my sister, who doesn't have 10 years experience, CAN drive it (as much as 50% of the time) because she doesn't live in the same household as me. I am the principal operator, and the car is registered to my address, which is different from hers.

Originally Posted by ruthless

you said it applies to the car not the driver(s) but then you say your sister can drive because she doesnt live in the same household(address) but she doesnt have 10 years of experience...I think it applies to whoever drives the car has to have 10+years of driving experience...ICBC screwed me over because our agent left the 10 year experience thing on one of our cars while taking it off the other car (yea i know we should have read through it more thoroughly, but learned the hard way), and I get into an accident (car was under dads name, and had 10 year experience thingy) so now I have to pay a 40% premium on top of the insurance which sucks

Gonna go off-topic a bit here... from what I remember what the insurance broker was telling me, the address on the registration papers and my drivers license have to be different if it has the 10 year restriction thing. That's what the insurance broker said + it does say "within the same household" or some shit like that. Not to sure, would appreciate if someone can chime in on this.

Originally Posted by iambeetle

Can you please tell me how do I know if I am prohibited under a provincial motor vehicle act, or criminal code?

Thanks!

Correct me if I'm wrong but speeding, illegal lane change, etc is MVA while dui is criminal. That's how I interpreted it anyways lol

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by iambeetle

Can you please tell me how do I know if I am prohibited under a provincial motor vehicle act, or criminal code?

Thanks!

Generally speaking...a MV Act prohibition is done by the regsitered letter telling you that your history is bad enough that they are prohibiting you.

The Criminal Code prohibition is told to you by the Judge at the end of your trial when you are convicted and he tells you the penalty. You don't get a letter in the mail for that one.