Category - ADI

The Metro reports that mobility scooter rider David Hutchinson (65), of Bury St Edmonds, was seen weaving down the road by a police officer and pulled over.

He was breathalysed and gave a result of 125µg/100ml (the limit is 35µg).

He escaped a jail sentence because the scooter is not considered to be a “vehicle”. He was charged with being drunk in charge of a bicycle (and the sooner that law is updated, the better).

But better yet, he was already banned from driving and is currently serving a four-month suspended sentence.

But he had a good lawyer and managed to get off – even though any sane person would begin to join the dots… banned already, prison sentence, breach of conditions… drunk on a mobility scooter.

Those mobility scooters are a bloody nuisance at the best of times. The people who ride them often think they have right of way over everyone and everything, and coupled with an often ageing and cantankerous attitude they can be a right pain. I once saw an old guy go ploughing into a group of schoolgirls (hurting one of them) – he either did it deliberately, or he shouldn’t have been out alone without supervision. There was no other explanation.

EDIT: The EU ruling has confirmed that gender cannot be taken into account. So women’s insurance WILL rise in December 2012.

I posted recently about the possible hike in women’s motor insurance premiums.

Someone sent me a link to the Coventry Telegraph and a news article involving comments from local driving instructor, Sadhna Patel.

Ms Patel says:

I don’t think it’s fair because I have male learner drivers and they are much more prone to accidents than my female drivers.

The women I teach are much more reasonable and safer on the roads during lessons – they will think twice before a manoeuvre and they are more wary of what else is going on around them.

But it gets even better. Ms Patel’s justification for this idiotic comment include such evidence as:

I totally disagree with it. I’m sure other women will disagree.

The boys pass too, however, I did have one who passed just two weeks ago and his mum bought him a car the next day, and he crashed it. It was a complete write-off.

So, based on the fact that women don’t like the idea and she’s had one pupil write his car off, the entire country operates in an identical pattern, does it?

It’s worth pointing out to Ms Patel that it is a scientifically proven fact that women’s spatial awareness is not as good as that of men. This in itself leads to situations which can lead to accidents – unfortunately not always involving the person with the poor awareness. And there is an old saying which may just be referring to this when you think carefully…

Women may not have as many accidents as men, but they cause a lot more!

Of course, it’s OK for Ms Patel to say bad things about male drivers (and for the Coventry Telegraph to print them), but not many newspapers get away with saying things about women. And that’s where the problem is.

SOME women are more dangerous than SOME men. Older ones especially.

And I’ve written in the past about texting whilst driving (and the even more frightening variants – tweeting and using Facebook). Whenever I see anyone texting when I’m on lessons, it is nearly always the women.

The article concludes with the indignant outpourings of another woman (and yes, the need to point out she is “a single mum” who is going to University to study Law – go figure – is not wasted).

Insurance premiums should start high (or fairly high) for everyone and then come down (or go astronomical) depending on claims. It should not be gender specific. Age should definitely be a factor. But not gender.

I can barely write this legibly in my haste to get it up on here! It’s one of those stories whose author is so glaringly immature that it provides you with the equivalent of the Philosopher’s Stone when you disagree with the point being made. 

I found this link from this is Kent online newspaper. The reporter’s name is Sam Inkersole, and he is 22 years old according to what he has written. His article is entitled “L Plates Are Driving Me Mad Here”.

He explains that since he started working in the town, it has become “abundantly clear, and increasingly annoying” to him that “there are a lot of learner driver companies in Sevenoaks”.

…and that means a lot of learner drivers clogging up the roads with their stalling, non-indicating, not moving off when there is no traffic from the right and nearly causing accidents.

I value my no-claims bonus, currently approaching four years.

Wow. Four years on the road, and an expert already.

The simple fact is that if learners are “nearly” causing accidents, it is the jackass behind who is at fault – not the learner. If someone doesn’t go when you think they were going to, it is YOUR fault if you drive into them as they remain stationary. So in that respect he is right to worry about his no claims – because if he DOES drive like a jackass straight into one of these learners, it’ll be HIS fault – not theirs.

But he asks us to bear with him – he has a point to make. Let’s see what it is:

Sevenoaks seems to be busy with cars at most times of the day… It can’t be easy for learners.

Maybe this is where their trepidation comes from. Sevenoaks is not the easiest place to drive when you are qualified, let alone learning.

I refer to the “danger junction”, the Bat and Ball crossroad, and the Seal Hollow Road/St John’s Hill junction.

Right. So we have a busy town with a busy junction (which is quite possibly on the test route). But apparently we’re only talking about Sevenoaks, so the hundreds of other towns and cities across the country which also have “danger junctions” are irrelevant to this naïve young person whos is probably revelling in his first “proper” job.

But, bless him. He has a solution to the problem:

My solution would be to let them learn in the villages nearby, get them used to driving on quiet roads that can also be very tricky as practice, then ease them in.

Don’t just throw them into town where they will only feel worse about the whole driving experience and have their confidence shot.

I laughed hard when I read this. This is what 99% of those instructors will be doing with their pupils already (except perhaps for the villages part). In fact, the residents of the side streets (and quiet villages) are probably already apoplectic – far more so than this little lamb – about learners clogging up their streets and “stalling”.

This juvenile actually seems to think instructors take learners out to the busiest, hardest junctions on the first lesson!

I suppose he should be reminded:

• the ink is still wet on HIS licence
• learners have to learn somewhere
• HE learnt somewhere

The most obnoxious person, in my opinion, is the one who believes that no one else should be permitted the same opportunities THEY had.

It’s worth pointing out that not many learners drive headlong into other people, mainly because they have an instructor with them. They don’t often indicate incorrectly – far less often, in fact, than expert drivers like young Master Inkersole, who contribute significantly to making “danger junctions” what they are.

Here’s an interesting American article from the Lancaster Eagle Gazette.

It claims that in the last month there have been at least 12 serious crashes in Ohio, where the driver overcorrecting from a lesser situation made the whole thing far worse.

Bill Alsnauer, an agent for State Farm Insurance in Ohio, said most of these instances [the initial situation that prompted the overcorrection] are due to distracted drivers, and people not leaving enough distance between themselves and the vehicle ahead of them.

That’s the same wherever you go, of course. Alsnauer adds:

Younger drivers sometimes think the best way out of a situation is speed, and doing things quickly.

He could have added that being too confident of one’s skills is also contributory – in the UK, that would definitely be true, especially of young drivers.

Randy Hall, a driver trainer (equivalent to an ADI over here), points out:

…a common instance of overcorrecting is when one slams on the brakes after leaving the roadway.

If only one wheel is on the road, this leads to unequal braking that causes the car to go to the left…

Wendy Haar, another trainer, says:

…it’s important for motorists to know if the vehicle they are driving has anti-lock brakes, which helps the uneven braking problem…

And Chris Troupe – also a trainer – says:

overcorrecting is caused by improper hand techniques when spinning the wheel. Also… young drivers often turn the wheel the wrong way; they should steer in the direction they want the car to go.

People will end up with their hands crossed, they’re not using their hand-over-hand techniques…They basically run out of room to turn.

As an aside, this highlights one of the things I’ve pointed out many times before about “crossing hands” and ”hand-over-hand” steering in the UK. Troupe is referring to gripping the wheel and swinging it round with the hands fixed, as opposed to reaching over and pulling the wheel as necessary. It’s one of the first things learners have to be tutored out of, as they usually automatically fix their hands when steering and run out of anywhere to go once they cross their hands at the forearm position. But hand-over-hand is totally different.

In fact, a lot of ADIs actually stop people using hand-over-hand steering as if it were a fault. I get quite a few pupils who’ve been told not to – when there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn’t.

The only difference between the UK and the USA appears to be that over here, the preferred steering method is pull-push (with hand-over-hand being fine for rapid, slow-speed steering), whereas the Americans teach hand-over-hand.

But back to the point of the story, the article concludes by saying:

The biggest contributor to overcorrecting is when panic sets in.

When you panic, your mind shuts off and you don’t think logically…

The article stops short of making any recommendations, even though it is effectively saying that you may know what to do, but you won’t do it when you have to.

I guess the whole point is not to get into the predicament to start with. As ADIs, we should train this into people. We should also make sure they know what they should do if they do get into a pickle – but beyond that, what else is there?

If panic stops people doing what they would ordinarily know to do, no amount of training is going to alter that. So the primary focus has to be on prevention, surely?

I saw this news item on the TRL website – it concerns a meeting between the DIA and Mike Penning, the Under-secretary of State for Transport.

Suggestions for the future made by the DIA include:

…[including] the Pass Plus scheme into the learning-to-drive syllabus, including lessons on motorway use, which would include a training session on the carriageway for pupils if they have approved driving instructors.

…students should not be able to apply for a test until their instructor feels they have sufficient experience in motoring on all types of road.

I’m always wary of any organisation’s motives where, depending on the angle of the light, it is either blatantly a union or blatantly a profit-making outfit. In between times, such organisations often resort to being a vehicle for the egos of the founders and most prominent (i.e. loudest or highest politically-aspiring) members.

I saw it’s recent “true” story about the Acromas takeover of BSM, and that came across biased to say the least. It concluded with veiled “doom is upon us” sentiments.

The thing is, the DSA is already conducting “learning to drive” trials, so the DIA is obviously trying to interfere with that by bypassing the DSA completely. Letting learners loose on motorways has already been considered and ruled out in recent times – it would involve huge changes to implement, anyway. And although there is the chink of light for the DIA (it was under Labour that it was ruled out, so the LibCons might side with it for those reasons alone), most accidents involving young drivers occur on rural roads and not motorways – so the proposed change really doesn’t have a valid purpose.

The other suggestion is also a rehash of something which has previously been ruled out. Some learners live in places where “all types of road” are not available, and for that reason alone such a change just wouldn’t fit.

When someone gets in your car, you know if they can drive or not. If they can drive around town and between locations separated by 5-10 miles or so, and do so repeatedly across lessons via different routes with no major issues (plus complete ALL of the basic manoeuvres), then they are capable of passing the driving test and suitable for being allowed out on their own. The examiners should be testing along those same lines.

The problem is with certain (actually, quite a sizable number) current ADIs who don’t teach anything even close to this.

And that’s where the “learning to drive” initiative comes in. Those who are going to have the biggest problems with it are ADIs who don’t teach people properly.

Here’s an interesting driving story from America.

In the USA, anyone who wants to drive has to do a driver-training course, and these can be completed in high-school or using a commercial driver trainer (a bit like an ADI in the UK, I guess). Then they can take the state driving test.

There is a bill being considered which proposes that parents would be able to teach their children if they’re under 18. The parent would have to buy an approved curriculum pack, be at least 25 years old, and have no drink-driving convictions or other driving “infraction” on their records.

A home-schooling lobby organization, the Christian Homeschool Network of Washington, backs the bill and believes it would produce safer drivers.

“After all, parents have a vested interest in the safety of their children out on the road,” said DiAnna Brannan, the group’s director of advocacy and volunteer lobbyist. She added that the organization doesn’t think driving schools are bad; the group just wants another option for driver’s education.

There is a certain amount of naïvete in that quote.

Parents may have a “vested interest in the safety of their children out on the road”, but they also have a vested interest in getting them on the road as quickly and cheaply as possible. The same organisation admits this:

Brannan told legislators at a hearing last week that home-schooling driver’s education also would be a “huge cost savings to families.”

Yep. A HUGE amount of naïvete. Read the rest of the story and it seems others in the States agree.

Ironically, this is almost the mirror image of what many people would like to see over here – that only professional tuition should be allowed. We, of course, already do it more or less the way the Americans are considering doing it, and look at the mess young drivers make of themselves on the roads over here.

Bereaved parents may shed buckets of tears at the funerals of their little darlings, who’ve plastered themselves across farmland next to many rural roads, but they were anxious as hell to spend as little as possible getting them behind the wheel in the first place.

The Americans had better be warned. They’re opening massive flood gates with some very nasty stuff behind it if they aren’t careful!