Taking out a learner driver with a fondness for 'Whacky'

[bryan35]

Chatting to a friend of mine (male) and it came up in conversation that he's offered to take out a mutual friend (female) for driving practice. On his head I suppose, but he's got a fairly reasonable deal on the insurance (£25 for 1 week cover). The only concern is that said female does like to while away the evenings 'chilling' as you could put it. I voiced my concerns, but although reasonably knowledgeable on the subject of alcohol and driving, neither of us have much of a clue about cannabis and driving. My gut instinct is to simply refuse to take her out at all, but is this overreacting? what's the legal and real-world situation?

[BritishRacinGrin]

I presume she smokes in the evenings so this would be after her driving session? So long as she's not actually 'under the influence' while driving there is no particular reason it should be a problem as within about 6 hours the actual effect of smoking will have worn off. The only gotcha is that going to bed high typically results in poor quality sleep so drowsiness might be an issue.

[bryan35]

BritishRacinGrin said:

I presume she smokes in the evenings so this would be after her driving session? So long as she's not actually 'under the influence' while driving there is no particular reason it should be a problem as within about 6 hours the actual effect of smoking will have worn off. The only gotcha is that going to bed high typically results in poor quality sleep so drowsiness might be an issue.

This is the thing that confuses me. Running a comparison to alcohol, cannabis appears to stay in your system for a very long time - even weeks, and it has been known for someone who feels sober the morning after a drinking session to still blow over the drink drive limit. Are you therefore technically over the cannabis 'limit' even though you feel ok, and can this be measured?

The main worry I would have is the 'drink and drugs' clause on the insurance. Basically the insurance company have told him (in the legal fast bits towards the end of the phone conversation) that the insurance would be null and void on evidence of drink or drugs.

[BritishRacinGrin]

The police do have the right to perform a roadside test for cannabis. Roadside testing kits are quite a recent development and I am unsure how widely they have been deployed.

Cannabis does remain measurable for quite a long time after consumption, but it remains effective for a much shorter period.

For your friends to get in trouble with this the police would have to have cause to suspect the driver of cannabis use, and then either carry out a roadside test if equipped to do so or perform a test at the station. They would then use those results to decide whether the readings are high enough to have impeded her driving.

Not beyond the realms of possability, but highly unlikely to happen if she isn't high at the time, doesn't smell of weed and isn't found to have any on her / in the car.

[bryan35]

BritishRacinGrin said:

The police do have the right to perform a roadside test for cannabis. Roadside testing kits are quite a recent development and I am unsure how widely they have been deployed.

Cannabis does remain measurable for quite a long time after consumption, but it remains effective for a much shorter period.

For your friends to get in trouble with this the police would have to have cause to suspect the driver of cannabis use, and then either carry out a roadside test if equipped to do so or perform a test at the station. They would then use those results to decide whether the readings are high enough to have impeded her driving.

Not beyond the realms of possability, but highly unlikely to happen if she isn't high at the time, doesn't smell of weed and isn't found to have any on her / in the car.

What would happen in the case of an accident? Is a drug test performed along with the mandatory breath test?

[BritishRacinGrin]

If there's an accident and the police attend, and they have cause to suspect one of those involved was under the influence, then they can take a sample of breath or an oral swab test there and then and/or perform a more detailed test at the station. Of course they can do all of this even if they don't suspect D&A were involved but what I'm getting at is a D&A test is not a standard and routine part of a police investigation after an RTA.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

I'm sure that if she were to be charged following an accident with driving under the influence, then as a prov licence holder, the accompanying full licence holder would be charged with "causing and permitting", which will come with the same ban as actually doing it yourself.

[TooMany2cvs]

bryan35 said:

This is the thing that confuses me. Running a comparison to alcohol, cannabis appears to stay in your system for a very long time - even weeks, and it has been known for someone who feels sober the morning after a drinking session to still blow over the drink drive limit. Are you therefore technically over the cannabis 'limit' even though you feel ok, and can this be measured?

There isn't a "limit" in the same way as alcohol - merely "impaired". And whilst cannabis does stay in the system and can be "seen" by testing for a month or so (a LOT longer in the hair), it doesn't have an effect after a shortish period.

[Aretnap]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I'm sure that if she were to be charged following an accident with driving under the influence, then as a prov licence holder, the accompanying full licence holder would be charged with "causing and permitting", which will come with the same ban as actually doing it yourself.

There's no offence of causing or permitting driving under the influence, as far as I can tell. Certainly it doesn't appear in RTA s4 (compare with insurance and licences, where the law does create separate offences of causing or permitting).

It could be something like encouraging or assisting the offence, but those are not matters of strict liability and require a belief that the offence will be committed, ie you'd have to know, or at least believe, that she was unfit to drive.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Aretnap said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I'm sure that if she were to be charged following an accident with driving under the influence, then as a prov licence holder, the accompanying full licence holder would be charged with "causing and permitting", which will come with the same ban as actually doing it yourself.

There's no offence of causing or permitting driving under the influence, as far as I can tell. Certainly it doesn't appear in RTA s4 (compare with insurance and licences, where the law does create separate offences of causing or permitting).

It could be something like encouraging or assisting the offence, but those are not matters of strict liability and require a belief that the offence will be committed, ie you'd have to know, or at least believe, that she was unfit to drive.

DR80 is driving whilst unfit thru drugs. I thought that any conviction could be amended with a 2,4 or 6 as follows:

DR82 - aiding and abetting drug driving
DR84- causing or permitting drug driving
DR86- inciting drug driving.

So why wouldn't the code for the accompanying full licence holder be DR84, permitting?

[Aretnap]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

DR80 is driving whilst unfit thru drugs. I thought that any conviction could be amended with a 2,4 or 6 as follows:

DR82 - aiding and abetting drug driving
DR84- causing or permitting drug driving
DR86- inciting drug driving.

So why wouldn't the code for the accompanying full licence holder be DR84, permitting?

There's no such offence as "DR80" or "DR84" - those are just codes the DVLA uses to classify offences. The DVLA classify a causing or permitting offence by replacing the 0 with a 4 so if there was such an offence as causing or permitting drug driving it would get endorsement code DR84. But the fact that there's a theoretical endorsement code doesn't mean that the offence exists - there still has to be a law creating it.

The actual offence would be driving while unfit through drink or drugs contrary to RTA section 4, or alternatively causing or permitting driving while unfit, contrary to... what exactly?

There are generic laws creating some inchoate offences - eg you can aid and abet any offence, or encourage or assist any offence, whether or not they involve motoring. But AFAIK there's no law creating a generic offence of causing or permitting some other offence (motoring or otherwise). It only exists where the law makes specific provision for it - as it does for causing or permitting driving without a licence or insurance, but not for causing or permitting driving under the influence, or speeding. Which makes sense when you think about it... if you're going to lend someone your car it's reasonable to hold you responsible for ensuring that they're licensed and insured - it would be less reasonable to hold you responsible for ensuring that they don't drink and drive or speed.

Incidentally those DVLA codes look rather out of date. The common law offence of incitement was abolished in 2008 so you can no longer be convicted of inciting drug driving, or any other offence. The modern equivalent is encouraging or assisting an offence.

[un1corn]

BritishRacinGrin said:

The police do have the right to perform a roadside test for cannabis. Roadside testing kits are quite a recent development and I am unsure how widely they have been deployed.

Cannabis does remain measurable for quite a long time after consumption, but it remains effective for a much shorter period.

For your friends to get in trouble with this the police would have to have cause to suspect the driver of cannabis use, and then either carry out a roadside test if equipped to do so or perform a test at the station. They would then use those results to decide whether the readings are high enough to have impeded her driving.

Not beyond the realms of possability, but highly unlikely to happen if she isn't high at the time, doesn't smell of weed and isn't found to have any on her / in the car.

You don't even need new drug testing 'kits'.

Officers can perform impairment tests at the roadside which include basic cognitive tests and examination of the eyes.

Although i'm sure even without this, they could arrest susp Sec4?

[VonSenger]

If she's stoned when he picks her up, your friend and the stoner are breaking the law. Simples.

If not, crack on. (excuse the pun). Your friend should avoid taking her out in the morning and ensure she hasnt smoked when he picks her up later in the day. This will be clearly evident by the individuals lust for Monster Munch and the red eyes.

Or you can waste more police time by calling them and notifying them, Im sure they will be with you in a flash.....

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Aretnap said:

Which makes sense when you think about it... if you're going to lend someone your car it's reasonable to hold you responsible for ensuring that they're licensed and insured - it would be less reasonable to hold you responsible for ensuring that they don't drink and drive or speed.

Of course you are absolutely right and I defer to you obvious knowledge on the subject.

However, in the case of a qualified driver supervising a learner, I personally think it's completely reasonable to hold the supervising driver responsible for the crimes of the learner, including speeding, parking on a zig zag line, no L plates and drink/drug driving.

But that's just my opinion, and regrettably the law and my opinion don't always concur.

[Track Rod]

Anyone remember the 'experiment' which Quentin Wilson did on TV ages ago (might have been old Top Gear?), about drug driving? He had a volunteer drive a test circuit, avoiding obstacles, reversing between cones etc. The volunteer then had a joint and repeated the test, and did much better! Less cones hit, drove slower, manoeuvred more carefully etc. Although he was completely silent throughout the test, much to the amusement of Wilson in the passenger seat.
Completely unscientific, but it was quite funny; and quite brave of the BBC to broadcast it given how certain parts of the media react to anything involving recreational drugs. Presumably the Beeb ordered in a catering size box of pickled onion Monster Munch as his fee....

[Aretnap]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

However, in the case of a qualified driver supervising a learner, I personally think it's completely reasonable to hold the supervising driver responsible for the crimes of the learner, including speeding, parking on a zig zag line, no L plates and drink/drug driving.

I'm not sure it's as black and white as that. Certainly it's reasonable to expect the supervisor to take a fair amount of responsibility, and if he actually encourages an offence, or at least makes no attempt to prevent one, he should probably be guilty of an offence himself. But there's also a limit to how much control a supervisor can have over what the driver does. If the supervisor tells the learner to slow down and the learner speeds up anyway should the supervisor be guilty of speeding? Or if the learner's foot slips off the brake pedal when he's coming up behind a stationary car, should the supervisor be guilty of careless driving?

In the case of drink/drug driving, if the supervisor knows the learner has been drinking or if he's obviously drunk/high/smelling of weed then it's fair enough to hold the supervisor accountable (and that's where aiding and abetting or assisting and encouraging would come in); however I wouldn't like the idea of a driving instructor losing his own licence if he had no reason to suspect that his student had had a couple of pints at lunchtime.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Aretnap said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

However, in the case of a qualified driver supervising a learner, I personally think it's completely reasonable to hold the supervising driver responsible for the crimes of the learner, including speeding, parking on a zig zag line, no L plates and drink/drug driving.

I'm not sure it's as black and white as that. Certainly it's reasonable to expect the supervisor to take a fair amount of responsibility, and if he actually encourages an offence, or at least makes no attempt to prevent one, he should probably be guilty of an offence himself. But there's also a limit to how much control a supervisor can have over what the driver does. If the supervisor tells the learner to slow down and the learner speeds up anyway should the supervisor be guilty of speeding? Or if the learner's foot slips off the brake pedal when he's coming up behind a stationary car, should the supervisor be guilty of careless driving?

In the case of drink/drug driving, if the supervisor knows the learner has been drinking or if he's obviously drunk/high/smelling of weed then it's fair enough to hold the supervisor accountable (and that's where aiding and abetting or assisting and encouraging would come in); however I wouldn't like the idea of a driving instructor losing his own licence if he had no reason to suspect that his student had had a couple of pints at lunchtime.

Fair points. But if the supervising driver knew the student was high as a kite, and did nothing, could they be done for permitting the offence, and end up with a DR84 offence on their licence?