Should learner drivers be expected to drive to the standard of a reasonably competent driver?

Question

As the law stands in the UK currently, lack of driving experience does not limit your liability to other road users, so if a learner driver caused a crash etc., they could be liable for the damage. (Case authority: Nettleship v Weston).

Do you think this is fair and reasonable?

Answer 1

Yes, it is. Learner drivers would only be on the road under the supervision of a competent licensed driver.



Consider the converse situation, where you might be involved in a costly accident, and find that the other driver, being at fault and being a learner, had little liability for the damage he caused to you.

Answer 2

Well, on one hand they need to have the same knowledge and competance but on the other there is a certain level of competancy that comes from experience and no matter how many lessons you take you won't get that from a learner. Just as there are good drivers and bad drivers so we must endure the lack of experience of learners but I don't think they are any more likely to cause an accident than some old people or a fool who drives carelessly, they all have slower reflexes than an experienced yet considerate driver.

Answer 3

Do you mean if the learner had not yet passed their driving test? Because if you do mean this, then yes it's slightly unfair because they are in a process of learning a practical skill which is best learnt in a real-life situation (ie driving a car on a road).



Most definitely not for someone who's passed their test! The test is a measure of driving skill: if someone canont drive to an expected level of competencey, hence causing a crash, they should not be driving and therefore are with good reason liable for damage caused!



Good question! :)

Answer 4

Yes

Anyone, learner or not should be take responsibility if they cause an accident and should be insured appropriately.

I have found in some cases that new drivers are safer on the roads due to being up to date with the new rules etc. Its the long term bad habit drivers that cause more accidents.

Answer 5

Like most people have asked, what parts of the test are you failing. What I failed my first test I did the following wrong: - I was speeding - I passed a parked car too close - the tester flinched and then scribbled furiously on his clipboard - I was making a left turn, went into the intersection, and got trapped there as the light changed. I had to reverse - more scribbling. After this I knew what I had to work on. By the way I was nervous too. Like someone said, teke the test elsewher where they may be more relaxed. Good luck. Also like other have suggested, a little humility might be in order. After all, if you were that competent, you would have passed the test by now.

Answer 6

If it's obvious that someone caused an accident then they should be liable, whether they are a learner or not. They are users of the road after all. The circumstances of an accident should always be taken into consideration though because it's not always obvious how an accident is caused.

Answer 7

If you cause a crash, and its your fault, then you are liable. Driving tests ensure that all licenced drivers are at a certain level of competency. Lack of experience is no defence.

Answer 8

Yeah. And the reason is simple. All drivers are going to have to go out onto the road one day. If you aren't competent, then walk or take a bus.

Answer 9

If you drive on the road, then you obviously should be liable for any crashes, deaths, damages to property etc. You agree that by using our road system.

Answer 10

to be honest the more "experienced" driver is more of a danger on the road than a new driver as they (we ) take bigger risks and if a new driver does have a crash then its probably because of impatient drivers pressuring new drivers. yes whoever caused it is responsible new driver or old

Answer 11

Time served are the better drivers no question!!

Not sure of my views on the liability?

Answer 12

absolutely yes

Answer 13

YES