Category - General

Whenever I see these stories about people being banned (or prosecuted) the idiotic mitigating pleas their defence lawyers come out with always make me laugh.

Artur Lobacs allegedly had a row with his girlfriend, shot two red lights in front of an unmarked police car, then reversed aggressively after turning into a dead-end street, wove from side-to-side, and nearly collided with parked cars.

When pulled over, Lobacs was unsteady on his feet and failed the breath test. He was found to be nearly twice the legal limit. He was arrested.

In court, his lawyer said he had argued with his girlfriend and drunk one small glass of whisky.

It must have been one hell of a small glass. Working on the approximation that two pints of beer is the maximum you should drink if you’re driving, that would be equivalent to 4 units. Lobacs was twice the limit, so had consumed 8 units. That means his “small glass” was equivalent to four double whisky measures – or 200mls of the stuff!

That’s nearly half a pint of whisky in his “small glass”.

His lawyer still got paid, no doubt, even though the court didn’t swallow any of it and banned Lobacs for 17 months, and fined him a total of £350.

This article from The News of Portsmouth is interesting [dead link removed]. The author is a reporter for the publication.

The article is titled “There are some things your parents can’t teach you”, and is the author’s personal opinion regarding driving lessons – first with her dad, and then with a driving instructor.

I recently posted an article about private practice, and gave some examples of the kinds of things that can happen to make it… well, not very useful.

I’ve also got a shed load of stories about the family arguments caused when a parent or partner tries to teach a learner.

One current pupil goes out with his dad. After his first time out, I asked him if they’d ended up arguing – he couldn’t wait to unburden himself over how his dad shouted at him, always found fault, told him to do things differently to the way I’d taught him, tried to teach him a “better” way of parallel parking (but couldn’t explain how he – with 30 years experience – judged positions and when to steer, and so created massive confusion), and so on.

A while back, I’d arranged for a pupil’s husband to sit in the back on a lesson so he could see what to look for. At the end of the lesson, I wagged my finger theatrically and said:

Now promise me that you WON’T fall out over this!

My pupil replied:

You’re too late! We already have!

They were apparently not on proper speaking terms that day because of a lesson he’d taken her on the night before (and with hindsight, it explained the look on her face if he said anything during that lesson).

And another current pupil is often in a bad mood because he’s had an argument with his mum after she’s pointed something out while they’re driving to or from school that day.

I could give loads more examples, but the point is that as well as private practice sometimes being of poor quality due to the supervising driver not being necessarily a good driver or a good teacher, there are also the underlying “issues” that frequently exist within families which can prevent even good supervision being received well (i.e. there is no “detachment”)

Anyway, back to this article. The authour comments that although lessons are expensive they should still be a legal requirement becuase parents don’t have the training or detachment (see my comment above) necessary to do the job. She says that yelling at your kids on the street is one thing, but yelling at them when they are in control of the 2-litre family car is something else.

She mentions that things can go wrong – and cites the example of the mother accidentally killed by her daughter in a car park in an accident, but says others are lucky to get away with bumps or scrapes.

She concludes by saying that she believes there should be a retest every 5 years, more than 3 points for speeding, and lifetime bans for drink driving.

I agree fully with her comments, and the reference to the tragic accident involving that mother and daughter is very pertinent indeed.

Mind you, a serial commenter called Ripcords Ghost doesn’t. He or she thinks that the article is an “advertorial” and the reference to the mother who was killed is “very distasteful”.

Ripcords Ghost should get a life.

…all your bits and pieces, too! I couldn’t resist that (ZZ Top, if anyone’s wondering).

The Daily Mail reports that from tomorrow (Sunday?) you can’t get a new driving licence unless you declare whether you will donate your organs or not.

Apparently, critics reckon it is a first step to organ donation becoming compulsory.

I can’t really see what the big deal is. The question has always been there, so now you have to answer it – otherwise it’s the same as not filling in your surname or something: it is void and won’t be processed. The article reckons people often left it blank or “missed it”.

Somehow, it has become a big political issue. Tory MP Peter Bone manages to bamboozle with this statement:

I don’t remember this being discussed in Parliament and what they are saying is, “We’re going to stop you getting something you’re entitled to and ask you about something which is not relevant at all to what you’re applying for”…

It doesn’t apply to everyone. I may not need a new licence, so I won’t answer the question. It’s Big State gone mad.

Uh-huh! But anyway, if ever I see the question on a form, I just fill it in. Easy, really.

Update: Mind you, I’m not convinced by the London Evening Standard’s attempts to associate the issue with the war on Iraq or Libya! A little OTT, I think.

I think it’s up to ME to decide whether I donate my organs or not. Not the London Evening Standard, or anyone else.

Also covered by Sky News, and The Guardian.

I saw this in The Bolton News. Ashley Buckley, 21, was caught driving dangerously TWICE in less than 12 months. Police saw him behind the wheel of a Citroen Saxo – a car favoured by the Prat Men of our society – while he was disqualified from driving (presumably from the first time).

He flung the car around to face oncoming traffic, drove off, and stopped the car to run away. He had pulled off a similar stunt the previous time by driving through red lights (anyone looking to employ a getaway driver should avoid this guy).

The police didn’t need to chase him, because they knew who he was and just went round to his house later to arrest him (Buckley also seems to have the intellignece favoured by his kind).

His defence lawyer said:

He apologises for his stupidity.

Of course he does. Mind you, it is fortunate this was dealt with by the Crown Court (which jailed him for 10 months). If it had been the Magistrates on Merseyside or in Lancashire he would probably have been awarded damages for the stress the police put him under by spotting him, and sent on holiday somewhere.

As it is, he’ll have to wait a bit before trying for Arrest #3.

Anyone who reads this blog regularly will know that I don’t have a lot of time for older drivers who are clearly a risk, and yet keep on driving (or complain if they are banned because of poor eyesight or other problems, as if they have some special right to drive).

When I first saw this in the newsfeeds, I was immediately sceptical – but the lady concerned, Peggy Hovell, doesn’t seem to fit the usual bill.

Even so, I will say what I’ve said before. At 100 years of age, she is a hell of a lot closer to the end than she is to the beginning. So is it safe for her to be on the road when she could – and let’s be honest about it – peg out at any time?

It’s a very tricky question.

Update: And the Daily Mail has got hold of it a few days later than everyone else.

Someone asked on a learner forum what to expect on the driving test. Along the way, another person asked::

Is it unlikely to have the same examiner twice?

They got the answer:

No, I had the same one three times.

At my two test centres, there are around 8-10 examiners working at each. That means you’ve got as high as a 1 in 10 chance of getting the same instructor twice. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times it has happened, even with pupils who have taken more than 2 tests. It depends on where you are, and what day of the week it is (weekends, only one or two examiners might be working).

Then there is the comment:

You pull out of the test centre, either doing a bay park then or driving for about 10 mins before doing a reverse park, three point turn or reverse round the corner, drive for another ten mins then do independent driving

Not everyone has a test centre you can “pull out of” (one of ours, for example), which means that a bay park is probably not even on the agenda. Even if it is, there is a 50:50 chance the bay park manoeuvre will be done at the end of the test. And if that’s the manoeuvre you’re going to do, you won’t have to do any of the others – except maybe the emergency stop, which is separate and is carried out on a third of all tests. Again, it depends on where you are.

Someone else asks:

How many times do they ask you to pull over?

One reply says that they were asked three times. But for the record, I once had a pupil who was asked to pull over at least 10 times – the examiner explained at the end that it was a near perfect drive, but he just wasn’t checking his blind spots on moving away. He’d given him a lifeline by keep pulling over, but he didn’t cotton on to it, so he failed. On the way back the pupil said:

I couldn’t figure out what was going on. He just kept pulling me over!

I could have killed him. On his previous tests he had not had a single fault for this – on this one he just went nuts. Yet again, there is no set answer: it just depends.

But the best comment so far has to be:

Just check your mirrors like every 2 seconds and check EVERYWHERE before you pull out/do manouvers. I passed before the new rules came into play so i’m not sure what exactly happened, but as for the show me tell me questions, your allowed to write on the parts of the engine what they are (i.e brake fluid, screen wash) and apparently its not cheating. There is a full list of the questions they will ask you online, here’s the one I used: [link removed]

DON’T check your mirrors “like” every 2 seconds. You’ll spend more time looking behind than at what is happening in front.

DON’T write anything under the engine (unless you want them to think you’re a prat from the start). Strange as it may seem, the parts you need to remember have little pictures on them which can take the place of words if you learn what they mean! There are other tell-tale signs:

• the windscreen washer reservoir has a picture of a windscreen with squirting water on it
• the engine coolant/radiator fluid reservoir has a hot water symbol on it, and pipes lead to it from the radiator at the front of the car
• the brake fluid reservoir has a normal brake symbol on it
• the oil dipstick looks exactly how you expect one to look, and has a ring on the end so you can pull it out

It varies a little from car to car, but not by much. And the other thing to remember is that the test marking sheet has around 50+ tickable items on it. The show-me-tell-me questions are peanuts compared to the rest of it (you only get one fault if you get both of them wrong – though doing so will still make you look like you don’t know what you’re doing), so just learn them and concentrate on driving. Don’t make it harder than it needs to be.

I also shake my head sometimes at answers like this, which strongly suggest the author didn’t have a clue going in. Because the answer is rather simple…

If you want accurate information about the driving test, get it from the DSA – not people who think what happens to them is the only possible way. And your theory test material and driving instructor should cover the questions so they don’t come as a big surprise.

I was watching a discussion on a forum recently (frequented by people who are learning to drive).

One thing that has become extremely clear from reading this particular forum is that every single person who ever learns to drive apparently does so as if they are the only person ever to do it. Whenever they ask for advice, all they seem to want to hear is “you will pass” – anything else offends them.

The thread I am particularly referring to here concerns a learner who has apparently been told she “will fail [her] test in a couple of weeks”. She says:

so i’ve been having more lessons recently as my test is fast approaching but it seems to me the more lessons i have the worse i am at driving

i hate roundabouts and always mess up on them
i’m rubbish at bay and parallel parking and my instructor always says things such as ‘you will fail badly for that’ i’m pretty sure he hasn’t taught me anything and my parents have taught me more than him. He just sits reading his magazines in the lesson or booking someone elses driving test whilst i’m driving!

any tips for the test? and is the test 1hr or 40 mins?

The comment about her driving instructor reading magazines and taking phone bookings has attracted the expected crop of “experts” (including a driving instructor), who obviously believe every single word without question.

Let me just point something out here. Out of the many hundred of pupils I have taught who have had lessons previously, not one of them has ever answered my question about why they left their last instructor by saying something like:

Well, I messed him around, sometimes couldn’t pay, missed lessons, cancelled at the last minute all the time, and he got fed up with me and told me he couldn’t teach me anymore.

However, I have got rid of loads like that – some of whom I’d picked up after they left their last instructor - and a casual glance at any ADI forum reveals that such pupils are common. And another thing that instructor forums reveal is that stories like this one are also very common:

My last instructor was too friendly, too nasty, shouted at me, turned up late, finished lessons early, didn’t turn up at all, cancelled lessons at the last minute, used his mobile, made comments about other drivers, was racist, didn’t teach me anything, etc.

The number of driving instructors who believe all this stuff without question is huge. They are eager to believe it – I think that’s the main problem.

But back to the original quote – the person adds in a later reply:

thanks guys for your comments

i think i will do the test and see what happens
my instructor does in fact have a high pass rate (god knows how) and ALWAYS brags about it ……maybe i’m just terrible at driving

it’s little things such as not enough mirrors, or signalling too late that i think will mess up my chances
but thanks guys!

nervous
and the show and tell me questions i hate so much!

Mmmm. Maybe it isn’t the instructor, then. But she asked for tips for the test. Well, let’s look at the issues:

• can’t do roundabouts
• can’t bay park
• can’t parallel park
• misses “little things” like mirror checks and signalling in time
• has problems with the show-me-tell-me questions

(and let’s not assume she’s an A1 expert at everything else here, because the signs don’t seem to point to it), my advice would be to cancel it, and rebook it after you learn to drive properly. It isn’t rocket science working that one out. Unfortunately, though, such common sense advice is clearly the wrong answer.

The correct answer is provided by someone right at the end of the thread:

Don’t worry! I was told I’d fail 2 days before and I passed

So there you go. Don’t waste your money actually learning – just get someone to tell you you won’t pass, and everything will be all right!

But anyway, the original poster seems happy with any sickly-sweet replies geeing her up – even though she clearly isn’t ready. I can already imagine whose fault it will be if she fails.

Update: And the poster in question passed. So, it just goes to show, doesn’t it?

This BBC report says that Northamptonshire police are set to target poor driving standards amongst taxi drivers and vans. Well, they have their work cut out there.

The story says, though, that:

Officers will be carrying out checks to make sure that all Hackney and private hire drivers and their vehicles are properly licensed…

Sgt Bob French, coordinating the operation, said: “Driving under the influence of drink or drugs, using a mobile phone, speeding and not wearing a seatbelt are the four key causes of collisions involving death or serious injury.”

Right. So it’s not really going after bad drivers – just the usual relatively soft targets. After all, the police should already be targeting drink, drugs, mobile phones, and seatbelts. Shouldn’t they?

If the police want to impress the public with something that’s really new, perhaps they should target taxi drivers who stop or turn wherever the hell they want, whenever the hell they want, whatever the signs or yellow lines say. That’s far more important to me than whether or not a taxi has got a valid licence to pick up fares.

And the same goes for van drivers – ALL van drivers, Yes, including those who work FOR the councils who are involved in this operation. Dustbin lorry drivers are some of the most arrogant prats on the road, deliberately stopping between parked cars and reversing into narrow roads to empty bins, and causing major hold-ups (usually during morning rush hour).

The smell of hypocrisy is strong in this one!