All jolly fine, I'm sure.
And what, precisely, has any of this to do with BEGGS's question?
Her friend, as the registered keeper of a vehicle, was asked to provide details of the driver of that vehicle at the time of an alleged offence. To fail to do so is an offence under S172 of the Road Traffic Act (under which I know you believe prosecutions are invalid unless those accuse consent to it, but no matter). None of this has anything to do with ownership of the vehicle, none of it has anything to do with SORNs or V5s. The definition of "driving" is well established in law and does not seem to be in dispute here anyway. Neither Bouviers Law Dictionary nor Blacks Dictionary (which seems to refer to cases in the USA) are therefore relevant.
BEGGS’s question is straightforward but your answers are bordering on drivel. I would not normally bother to level such accusations but over the past day or two you have contributed to two or three questions in “Law” and have provided misleading, confusing and on occasions utterly false information and I don't think it is helping much.