Thanks smac.Yes I have done a case law search on Brookers.There is no case of a supervisor being charged with having excess breath alcohol.Because there is no such offence.
zirconium,
Aug 10, 9:30am
The "supervisor" must be able to take over the driving if necessary. According to my mate who is a cop. Another opinion again, but there you go.
yudasgoat2000,
Aug 10, 9:52am
I'm with #10 and 15.
srylands,
Aug 10, 10:00am
So nobody knows.
stacie_nz,
Aug 10, 11:11am
if you drive faster u get these quicker
smac,
Aug 11, 8:32pm
srylands go ask a lawyer specialising in traffic law (you may have to pay). They will give you their OPINION. You have drawn a line that we can see regarding who's opinion you will accept, and who's you will not. So you are here asking this.why!
smac,
Aug 11, 8:52pm
Oh and just to spell it out, the reason nobody has been charged is because no offense was committed by the passenger. The offense is the driver's - no supervisor present.
flitt,
Aug 11, 8:54pm
Driver is 'required' to undergo breath testing. Supervisor can be 'requested' to blow into the portable device. You can pretty much 'request' anything, within reason, without needing any kind of legislation.
I suppose the supervisor refusing to blow would give reason to think that they are drunk. Learner driver + drunk supervisor = cop's right to kick everybody out of car.
mrfxit,
Aug 11, 9:25pm
Yes it's mostly an opinion but .
If the supervisor is not in a suitable capacity to legally drive if needed, then they are no longer a supervisor, but in fact a simple passenger. At this stage the Leaner driver will be in breach of licence conditions
Pretty simply really.
mrfxit,
Aug 11, 10:09pm
30 minutes talking to the NZTA licensing division is pretty much in agreement with my statement ^^ The regs state that the supervisor is "in charge". From there it goes on to the legal requirements of THAT person "in charge" of the vehicle.
in the case of a learner driver, the supervisor is the person "in charge" along with all the legal requirements pertaining to the supervisors age group as a "driver in charge" situation as being the same as being "the driver"
It's up to the supervisor to insist the learner driver obeys the laws & if not complying then the supervisor MUST insist the learner driver stop the vehicle to allow the supervisor to drive from THAT point.
If the supervisor is NOT in a suitable legal state to drive the vehicle, then that means the learner driver is not under suitable supervision & is in breach of their licence because they don't have a legal supervisor PLUS they now have a passenger.
srylands,
Aug 13, 8:34am
Yes I agree MrFixit - it is clear that if there is a drunk/drugged supervisor in the passenger seat, the learner gets charged with breaching their licence conditions - i.e they just have a "passenger".
Only issue we have left is burden of proof.Because the police cannot subject the "passenger" to a breath alcohol test.If the supervisor reeks of alcohol and or is unconscious then it is an open and shut case.But if not the police would be a bit stuck proving the supervisor is drunk.
srylands,
Aug 13, 8:35am
I think we can close this. Thanks for the contributions
zirconium,
Aug 27, 9:37am
Answer was on Motorway patrol last night. "If you are supervising, you must be sober, sir". They all got breath tested, and had to get out and walk home. Only the driver was charged, as she had had a skinful/violating license requirements.
mrfxit,
Aug 27, 8:39pm
The answer was already here above YOU.
mrfxit,
Aug 27, 8:42pm
If the supervisor isn't in a fit state to "supervise", then the learner driver is in breach of their licence & cannot drive. Next step is to find someone to drive the vehicle & this often reverts firstly to any passengers to see if theres anyone suitable & capable of driving legally. . . . . NEXT
zirconium,
Aug 28, 5:07am
Just making the point the officer breath tested all the licensed adults in the car. "Supervisor" first. :)
srylands,
Aug 8, 8:09am
I can't find anything in the road code that says that a supervisor of someone on a learners licence must be below the legal alcohol limit.(I know this would be foolish - so I am not condoning it.) But if a learner is stopped as a checkpoint, do they breath test the supervisor as well as the driver! Can someone find the law covering this!
morrisman1,
Aug 8, 8:16am
Ive been pulled over while being a supervisor for someone on their restricted and they didnt breath test me, neither did they ticket the driver for doing 120 so I guess the cop was in a good mood
alimac1,
Aug 8, 8:16am
I would think that the supervisor is technically in charge of the vehicle. which would mean that the limit would be the same as if they were the driver.
srylands,
Aug 8, 8:21am
Thanks alimac1 - that would be common sense I agree.But I can't find anything in the legislation that covers it.Police are only allowed to breath test "drivers".From this I can see no conditions that apply to the supervisor beyond having a full licence for 2 years.
Again I am not condoning drink supervision of learners.But IF a learner licence holder find him (or her) self in a position where they were the only "sober driver" I can't see any law preventing him or her driving their drunk "supervisor" home, even though common sense would say that it not a good thing.
smac,
Aug 8, 8:52am
Not sure which clause your link is to (not working for me), however clause 16(a)(ii) of the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Rule 1999 states that the supervisor "is in charge of the vehicle". If you take "in charge" to mean "drive" (which I believe the courts will) then sections 11, 11a and 12 of the Land Transport Act 1998 will apply (these cover not being boozed while driving).
rallec,
Aug 8, 9:00am
Supervisor does usually count as being the driver in a legal sense, but depending on the situation the cop can choose to not ticket/fine/charge.However more likely is they leave the learner alone (especially if pressured into it) and go for the supervisor.
srylands,
Aug 8, 9:32am
You are all just confirming that the law here is just based on opinion.Under the Act "in charge of" is a different concept to "driver".Police can only breath test "drivers" OR other people where they do not know who the driver is - i.e people playing games about who was driving.
I'm kind of surprised there is not a totally clear law on this.
srylands,
Aug 8, 9:34am
so just to be clear "supervisor" does NOT usually count as being supervisor in a legal sense - you are just making that up.It has no basis in the definitions in the Act.We need a lawyer damn it.
srylands,
Aug 8, 9:35am
sorry I meant to say ""supervisor" does NOT usually count as being "driver" in a legal sense."
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.