The Express reports that Aviva has put struggling motor rescue company, RAC, up for sale.
Top of the list of bidders is private equity firm Clayton, Dubilier, and Rice – they bought car auction firm BCA last year and also hold a stake in Hertz car rentals. Apparently, Carlyle – also a stakeholder in Hertz – is also in the race.
EDIT 24/6/2011: And Carlyle has won after paying £1bn, according to Sky.
I was out with a pupil this morning. She’s taken her test before - she’s one of my failees (I made that word up) this year.
When she’s driving, the best way I can describe her mind is by thinking of something which is completely random and all over the place – and then imagining something 100 times worse than that.
She has this habit of jamming the brakes on then immediately releasing them (causing bounce back), no matter how much she’s slowed down for the hazard. Since I took her on, I’ve been trying to get her to use the bite more instead of just stopping (and she doesn’t always use the handbrake when she does), so today we were driving up a slope towards some traffic lights to turn right. She’s slowed right down and the lights are going to change any second. The split second before they change, on go the brakes – then she panics, takes her foot off the brake (no handbrake, of course), the car bounces backwards and we begin rolling back down the hill.
I duelled the car, made her put the handbrake on, and then move off properly. Fortunately there was no one behind us. I pulled her over and this is what passed (and bear in mind that we have a laugh so this isn’t the way it seems):
Me: What have we said about using the handbrake?
She: Make up your mind – one minute you’re telling me to use the gas and bite, and then you’re telling me to use the handbrake.
Me: Yes, but you have to use them properly and at the right times. There’s no point slamming on the brakes when you’re on a hill like the north face of the Eiger and expecting to be able to find the bite without it rolling back or stalling.
She: There was nobody behind, so what does it matter?
Although the banter was fun, it is frustrating when people come out with explanations like that.
Then, a little later, we were doing a turn in the road on an industrial estate. Now, she has this habit of talking as a defence for what might happen – it’s almost like if she says “I know I’ve f***ed this up”, then if she actually does it won’t matter as much because she already predicted it. I’ve mentioned it to her before.
So we’re on this industrial road and the longer we arse about doing a manoeuvre the more chance there is of something turning up – thus increasing the chances of screwing it up as panic sets in. She starts the procedure and immediately starts yacking about something…
Me: Shut up and concentrate.
[first stage completed perfectly. Slip it into reverse gear, look all around, see a car approaching from the right, chewing gum comes flying out of her mouth, she lunges for it as it sticks temporarily in her hair, then spins off on to the central console near the handbrake. We’re sitting in the middle of the road blocking it at this time]
She: [tries to find the chewing gum wherever it landed]
Me: LEAVE IT. GET A MOVE ON – WE’RE BLOCKING THE ROAD.
She: Where’s it gone? [starts looking again]
Me: GET ON WITH IT. WE’RE IN THE WAY [take handbrake off and start barking instructions to finish the manoeuvre. I get her to pull over and sit with my head in my hands]
She: Where did it go?
Me: It’s there. Throw it out the window. Why on earth did you do that while we were in the middle of the manoeuvre.
She: I can’t help it if my chewing gum comes out of my mouth.
Me: That’s not what I meant. We were blocking the road with a car waiting and you just sat there worrying about your chewing gum, which wouldn’t have come out if you’d keep your mouth shut when you’re doing things.
She: It’s not like we were on the A52 or anything.
I just gave up. And she wants to pass so she can drive her kids around!
Even worse, I was out with another pupil this afternoon. This one is going to be real hard work for more than one reason (she is strapped for cash, wants to pass as soon as possible, has a boyfriend from a country where bribery to get a licence is compulsory and who believes that everyone should pass after one lesson over here otherwise they’re being ripped off, and who - unfortunately – is absolutely not a natural driver). In fact, I’ve already suggested she might want to consider the automatic route because of her clutch control (or lack, thereof), but she wants a manual licence.
She only takes one hour lessons, and can only book up to a week in advance (which is difficult when my diary is almost full three weeks out at any time), but I have to be on my guard every second, because literally anything could happen at any time. Kerbs, other cars, pedestrians…
So, we stopped at a set of lights. She reaches into the door pocket and starts checking her mobile phone for texts! I told her to put it back and leave it alone. Then I pulled her over and the conversation went:
Me: What you just did is illegal. You can get points on your licence and a fine for doing that. Only yesterday someone was jailed for reading texts on a mobile, when they lost concentration and killed someone.
She: Yes I know. I was just checking my texts from work.
Me: I know you were checking texts – I just told you that. It doesn’t matter who they’re from it’s still illegal.
She: Yes, but I’m expecting a call from work and I was checking.
I still don’t think the message got through.
(Note to any ADI sitting there thinking “she’s not test ready” on that first pupil – you don’t know the full story, so don’t make up the parts in between. The pupil is quite capable of driving properly and passing the test, but she’s also quite capable of total stupidity. My job as an ADI is to deal with the driving part – not the stupidity part.)
The April issue of Despatch is now available (I didn’t get a notification this month). Click the logo to download a copy.
In this issue they look at having observers on test one year after it was introduced, the Highway Code celebrating its 80th, a skit on CPD, the opinions of someone who teaches the deaf, a summary of that story about an ADI who was imprisoned for her part in a bribery conspiracy (an examiner is awaiting sentence), and a few odds and ends.
I wrote recently about the Highway Code being 80 years old. The DSA has just put out an email alert:
Highway Code celebrates 80 years on the road
One of Britain’s best selling and most iconic publications – the Highway Code – is 80 years-old today.
The first edition was published on 14 April 1931 in a bid to cut down on the number of accidents taking place on Britain’s roads. Despite the fact there were just 2.3 million motor vehicles at the time, over 7,000 people were killed in road accidents that year.
The Highway Code quickly became the ‘must read’ publication for those using the road and is now recognised the world over. The Code is now used by millions of drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians every year and has even been featured in TV drama storylines.
Road Safety Minister Mike Penning said:
“The Highway Code is the official guide to using the roads safely and responsibly. The Code has helped to save thousands of lives over the last 80 years, which is cause for celebration.
“The Highway Code is not just for new drivers, it holds crucial information for everyone from experienced motorists and motorcyclists to horse riders and pedestrians.
“The publication offers the latest information on the rules of the roads and road safety advice, as well as promoting greater courtesy and understanding among all road users. Its long-standing success is one of the reasons why Britain’s roads are among the safest in the world”.
The Highway Code has moved with the times and is now available in a variety of formats, including online from the Directgov website, as a download and on CD ROM with a voice-over for people with reading difficulties.
Wow. A huge stumble forward for electric cars is on the cards. This prototype SIM-LEI can apparently get 200 miles on a single charge.
You can read about it for yourselves, but it won’t be in production until 2013, and we can only guess on the price from the description (a separate motor for each wheel…!?)
Mind you, some of the comments are interesting at the bottom of the article. I agree with that one about how ugly electric cars are – they just look like there’s something wrong with them right from the start.
Then there is the one referring to the Tesla Roadster. Even after tax rebates that one costs over $100,000!
But let’s not forget that 200 miles (twice the Nissan Leaf’s range) is still pretty poor when you consider how long it will take to “fill” it up again. It’s also the manufacturer’s figure – real range is likely to be well under 180 miles, and even then only if you don’t have the climate control on.
And as for where you can fill it up… and what happens if you don’t…
A report in the Independent says that 70% of European drivers (that includes Britain) are driving on under-inflated tyres.
The survery was done by Bridgestone, who calculated that 2 billion litres of fuel are wasted annually as a direct result. Nearly 10% of cars tested were so seriously under-inflated they were dangerous.
You should always:
You can pick up pressure gauges from Halfords for around £5.
This one is frightening – the Mickey Mouse government we have is considering increasing the time between MoT testing from the current 12 months.
Unbelievably, the reason behind this is as follows:
There is growing public anger over soaring petrol prices and the overall cost of driving a car. This has forced Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary, to look at ways in which these costs can be curtailed. He has now ordered the MOT system to be reviewed.
Can you believe it? And they have the cheek to suggest this, too:
This could save motorists a significant amount of money in the long run.
Well, that’s from the article, but anyone who thinks it is true is an idiot.
If you take a car in for its MoT, the test itself only costs around £30 (to £60 depending on where you go) – this means that if you keep the car for 20 years (yeah, right. And assuming the MoT price stays the same) from new, instead of paying out £510 (first 3 years don’t need an MoT) you’ll pay only half that if they increase the lifetime of the certificate to 2 years. A saving of £250 over 20 years is not “a significant amount of money”, even if 20 years is a “long run”. And they ARE NOT going to increase it to 2 years – it’ll be 6 months or something pointless.
But where the costs really start to mount up is when you have to have work carried out. So if your tyres are bald or your brakes are down to metal, having that fixed every year is expensive – as is all the other stuff that goes wrong. When I used to have to worry about MoTs it was impossible to get the car through without £400+ of work each year. On my old Citroen Xantia, a new clutch cost nearly £500.
So what these idiots are advocating is that people will be allowed to drive around for two years (or whatever period they go for) in a death trap, instead of just one before it fails its MoT and gets fixed.
If the car has a fault, it has A FAULT. It needs fixing. Increasing the MoT period is a mandate for people to drive dangerously defective cars.
Oh, yes. We all know that the MoT doesn’t protect you if you are stopped and found to be driving a defective vehicle – even 10 minutes after the MoT was issued. I’m sure the families of those who will likely die as a result of people NOT being stopped by the police (who are subject to cuts of their own) feel much better about that.
If the idiots in this coalition want to help financially, then cut the stupid fuel duty by 10p.
Another Irish story, this time in the Independent. Apparently, 1 in 5 of all deaths on Ireland’s motorways is a pedestrian. Irish Trucker also reports the same story.
It’s another shocking statistic which perhaps derives from Ireland’s previously lax road laws.
RSA chief executive Noel Brett said pedestrians were a “massive risk” on motorways and not only were they a danger to themselves, they were putting other road users in danger.
“The message is clear: never ever walk on a motorway,” he said. “Pedestrians are at a massive risk on a motorway — you’re taking your life in your hands and putting other road users in danger, too.
“Likewise, drivers who stop on a motorway can cause collisions involving their own car and potentially many others. It’s unsafe and it’s an offence.”
Again, it is frightening that people can have such a blasé attitude. You can only hope that the country’s attempts to modernise it’s driving systems takes hold quickly, but you can’t help think that the present generation will always be a problem.
The Irish Times reports that driving the wrong way (citing a specific motorway in County Limerick) is now “a daily occurrence”.
The report also says:
The most dangerous drivers on motorways, gardaí say, are “middle-aged and older drivers”.
These would be the ones who “learned” to drive under Ireland’s previous almost non-existent (according to my Irish pupils) teaching system. I hope those opposed to Ireland’s attempts to bring their system up to scratch are listening… but I doubt it.
Having some troglodyte coming towards you in the outside lane in the opposite direction isn’t funny. I know.
It isn’t just my take. Noels Brett of the RSA said:
…there were 2½ million driving licence-holders, and the vast majority had had no formal driving instruction, particularly older drivers, who he said may be used to driving in a way that was not suitable for motorways. “If someone misses their exit they may feel it’s okay to do a U-turn, or try and reverse back. One simply cannot do that in the high-speed environment of a motorway,” he said.
It’s frightening, isn’t it? It’s like changing from driving on the left to driving on the right – but doing it gradually.
The Sun reports that the Highway Code is 80 years old – then goes on to take the pee in typical Sun fashion.
Road signs were a bit different back then, and a lot of consideration was given to road users who might be riding or moving animals, or who might be riding vehicles other than cars.
For example, you are advised that if you’re a drover (someone who moves cattle and sheep around on foot) and have someone with you, you should send him ahead so he can warn traffic.
Of course, back then it was customary to use the horn to let people the other side of a bend that you were coming. This gives The Sun all the opportunity it needs to say that a good PARP was all you needed, instead of MSM.
The juveniles who work for The Sun have no concept of anything that happened more than about 10 years ago and take the rise accordingly, in the mistaken belief that it’s humour. Well, it is to other juveniles.
Throughout the history of driving, the current version of the Highway Code has been vital. Back in the 30s the advice it gave was absolutely current. Some of the advice even back then still has validity today if you’re a half decent driver. A couple of years ago I was driving down a country lane and rounding a bend found the road blocked with sheep. A similar thing happened last year driving between Plumtree and Keyworth, as they were moving sheep from a field on one side of the road to the farm on the other. And more than once that stupid cow in Wysall has got out of its field to chow down on the Hawthorns the other side.
Of course, the kind of people who work for The Sun would probably have difficulty recognising a sheep, let alone dealing with a whole flock of them.
EDIT 18/4/2011: This article in the Express also makes interesting reading.