Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Rod D
Hi Guys
I wonder what your take is on this. Two handy Men work for a small family company of about 20 employees. They are a father and son. The Son is 17 and has just passed his driving test and has been insured to drive the company van (Small Astra Type)
I believe there has been occasions when he has driven this van on his own, my take is he can drive the van but should have an adult present (That can drive i.e. his dad)
I believe he should not drive this vehicle on his own.
YP RA's have been carried out for the tasks he undertakes.
Your thoughts please
Aye
Rod D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Donna
Rod
If the 17 year old has passed his driving test then why would there be a problem with him driving the van alone?
You only need supervision from someone with a licence if you have a provisional licence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Rod
If you were to take MHSWR reg19 literally then your assertion would be correct. However, in practice I do not believe the regulation was intended for driving, where a person although young has shown a level of skill and knowledge in order to pass their driving test and are presumably insured.
In short, I do not think it is necessary for a 17 year old to be accompanied whilst driving a company vehicle. I have no doubt someone will disagree with me...
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rod D
Thanks Donna
I am just looking at it from a different slant.
Anyone under 18 must be supervised when carrying out dangerous tasks i.e. Working on Lathes, Electric welding etc etc.
I am sure some Legal Eagle in the Insurance Company (If there was an accident involving him on his work duties) would class driving as a dangerous activity for a person under 18 and may say the insurance is Null and Void
Or I am I Just being Cynical
Aye
Rod D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Haynes
Just cynical I think - if he's passed the test and insured - let him do it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Donna
I would just clarify that the insurance company know his age and are still happy for him to drive the vehicle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Decimomal
One must never assume of course; but if we take it as read that the insurer is aware, and is content to insure on the basis of what you tell us then I would assume that all is in order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rod D
Thanks Guys
Aye,
Cynical D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Youel
if I am not mistaken we can still fight for our counrty [ bullets flying etc as I did] at 17 and a half so please use common sense
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Grace
Rod,
From the perspective of a H&S professional in an insurance company:
Any accident involving a 17 year old driving a van would be dealt with under the motor insurance. If he has a full license he can drive unaccompanied.
BUT
As another posters said make sure your insurer knows the situation. Generally it is thought that young drivers present a greater risk of accidents and thus will attract higher premiums. Some insurers may choose not to provide cover i.e. would not write the risk for a fleet of company vehicles where there were young drivers.
Hope this helps.
PS If he ran over someone in the yard it is most likely that this would be treated as an EL incident - insurer can't avoid such claims (if there is liability)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By safetyamateur
Not sure it's that simple, Bob. That logic can't be applied across the board.
Nah, it's a fair question if you're not that familiar with the nuances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Donna
Bob - You cant be deployed to Operational Theatre until you reach 18.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rod D
Guys
Many thanks
Bob
Thanks for the dig, where did you get shot at then?
I was shot on numerous occasions during my 22 years, Falklands, Ballymurphy, Springfield Estate, Crossmaglen, Middle East usual suspects..
But you had to be 18 to go to Ireland if my memory serves me correctly
Aye
Rod
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By alan noble
I attended transport safety course a year back and was astonished to find that the guy chuntering along in the tractor ahead of me on the road could be just 16.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Youel
D
I believe that the 'deployed in an operational area' is a relatively new idea? as I have personal experience of a different philosophy. Unless; that is, reality was one thing and the philosophy was another!
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Eddie
Bob,
It was certainly if force in 1978 when I was unable to deploy to West Belfast as I would not be 18 for another 2 months!
E
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Rose
I really don't see a problem with this as long as he is insured and the insurer are aware of age etc.
On the 'soldier' debate, just a thought but I don't think that uniformed members of the armed forces are employees but rather Crown Servants
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steven bentham
Passed test + notify insurance = drives van.
Ron
Did you really need to ask?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.