A few days ago I wrote about how a 98-year old man had been quoted £20,000 to renew his car insurance. The do-good organisations are naturally up in arms over it, suggesting that he should be allowed to drive without any restrictions. I also pointed out how there was recently a fatal crash in Nottinghamshire after an 87-year old managed to get on the wrong side of the M1 at 2am one morning and collided with a van, killing himself and the passenger in the van.
Then this story came in on the newsfeeds. In this case, 82-year old Sheila Fitzgerald set out on a 4 mile journey from Ormskirk to Rainford, in Merseyside, in foggy conditions. She was reported missing, and was found six hours later by police 50 miles away in Gisburn. She apparently “took a wrong turning in the fog and became confused”.
Once we’re through with the Mail’s saccharin-sweet appraisal of the “extraordinary journey”, it is worth noting that in her “confusion” Mrs Fitzgerald had accidentally driven on to the M58, then the M6, then the M65, then the M6 again, before finally getting on to the A59 and travelling in exactly the opposite direction to her home location for about 25 miles. She didn’t have a bloody clue where she was! The entire journey would have taken about an hour – maybe an hour and half allowing for the weather – with an average driver. Mrs Fitzgerald took six hours, remember, and yet when questioned she believed she’d only “been driving for about 20 minutes” and was “just finding her way home”.
Thinking back to the 87-year old and his innocent victim who were killed after driving the wrong way up the M1, you can only shudder to think at what could have happened if fate had been less kind to Mrs Fitzgerald and all those other drivers on the Merseyside motorways that foggy night.
This article is from 2011, but it has had a run of hits lately.
At the time of the original article (2011) I had noticed on one of the forums that someone was saying they’d heard that from next year (2012) it will be an offence to park too far from the kerb (or next to dropped kerbs), and you’ll be fined depending on how far away you are.
As an aside, in that first link a clown of a councillor (Alistair Thompson, Conservative) says:
It is utterly ludicrous to expect our traffic wardens to go around measuring how close people are parked to the kerb.
What about people with wheelchairs or Zimmer frames that need a space to get out of the car?
Yes Alistair, old chap. Including those people. Just because you are infirm doesn’t mean you can go around behaving in a way which is likely to cause inconvenience, and possibly injury or death in the right circumstances, to others. Parking in the middle of the road is stupid, ignorant, and dangerous – whether you have a Zimmer frame or not.
The Traffic Management Act (2004) (TMA) is a detailed document, but the version here contains all amendments which have not yet been approved.
The thing is, even under existing laws (and that includes those that were existing before 31st March 2008), it has pretty much always been an offence to park “inconsiderately”, with the police having tow-away powers in order to deal with it. I have always told my pupils that parking more than 18 inches (or 45 centimetres) away from the kerb is too far, and since I read the stories several years ago about councils enforcing it I have added “you could get a parking ticket” to my explanation.
Let’s face facts here: 50cm is half a metre. It isn’t a parking position in any shape or form – it’s in the middle of the road where most people would be driving, and it is extremely inconsiderate to leave your car there, not to mention dangerous. I’m not sure if the TMA specifically mentions 50cm, or if that’s a limit set by the councils when applying the TMA to inconsiderate parking. To be honest, I don’t care – though I’m sure plenty of people out there will.
Can you get a fine for parking too far from the kerb?
Yes.
How far is too far?
I don’t know the exact figure, though 50cm keeps cropping up. A story from a few years ago (which I cannot find) reported wardens out with tape measures making sure no one was more than 18 inches (45 cm) away. If you “park” anywhere near that far away from the kerb – which amounts to not even moving closer to it when you stop – you really do deserve a fine!
Why do people park so badly?
They do it because they are bad drivers who can’t control the car properly. I can’t imagine that anyone would park like that on purpose. Can you?
A 98-year old man was given a renewal quotation of £20,000 on his car insurance in Wales. The story in Wales Online makes much of the fact that the chap in question, Ron Jones, is an Auschwitz survivor who used his car to sell poppies.
This has nothing at all to do with Auschwitz (Mr Jones was a PoW, and in a separate part of the camp to the gas chambers) or poppy-selling.
But it has everything to do with being 98 years old. The insurance company involved, Ageas, says that Mr Jones should not have received the quotation, and they’re looking into it. In fact, he should not have received a quote at all as he no longer meets their eligibility criteria.
The article also says that Mr Jones “used to pay between £200 and £300 a year”. This is as misleading as the stuff about Auschwitz and poppies, since Mr Jones’ most recent premium was ten times greater at £3,000 – no doubt as a result of his age. Mr Jones is undoubtedly someone to be admired for what he did for the country and for what he had to go through. And his poppy-selling is also worthy of admiration. But that doesn’t alter the fact that he is 98 years old.
A few weeks ago there was chaos in Nottingham – throughout Nottinghamshire, in fact. An 87-year old driver had managed to get on to the wrong carriageway of the M1 at around 2am on a Monday morning and collided with a Transit van going the proper way. The passenger in the van, 27-year old Michael Luciw, was killed. He was a “father, son, brother, uncle, grandson and nephew”. He had a baby daughter. The M1 was closed for virtually the entire day as major carriageway repairs had to be undertaken and congestion across the county was massive. The 87-year old was named as Albert Newman, and he also died in the incident. Heaven only knows how he managed to get on the wrong carriageway in the first place, since all the junctions are designed to make that extremely difficult on that stretch of the M1 for any decent driver.
No matter what the do-gooders might say, elderly drivers become an increasing risk the older they get. It doesn’t matter if, like Mr Jones, they can claim never to have had an accident. Advancing years coupled with deteriorating faculties mean that the risk of having a catastrophic one increases, and that means innocent people like Mr Luciw (and his daughter who will never know him) become the main victims. You just have to face the fact that 87 is one hell of an age to still be driving – most people die long before that – and 98 is even more worrying.
I know it sounds harsh, but Mr Jones isn’t a victim in all this. Nor is it a case of ageism. It’s just facing facts.
Please note that all my “Darwin Awards” posts are my own take on situations and have no connection with any real award. I just like the term, as it describes people who are idiots very appropriately.
The deception was successful until you take into account the fact that he was caught. And that he had no insurance. And that he was “over the prescribed limit” suggesting he was drunk. And that he tested positive for drug-driving (that may have been the positive test they refer to). And that he was in possession of a prohibited lock knife.
His friend is also now a nominee for the 2015 Darwins. I mean, how could anyone be so stupid?
Reading the forums, it never ceases to amaze me how many ADIs who started their careers with a franchise vehemently try to deter new instructors from choosing that route.
A new ADI who is doing this job as their intended main source of income needs to get work as quickly as possible. In any given location in the country, an established franchiser is always going to be able to attract pupils more reliably than a newly-qualified instructor will be able to. That franchiser might overdo the sales pitch a little, by “guaranteeing” a full diary (then again, who is to say that they’re wrong – in the current climate it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if franchisers were able to do that), but it still remains that they have already done the advertising and their machine is up and running.
The driving instruction industry is so well-established and profit margins so well-defined that, at the top end, you simply cannot charge whatever you like because you’ll price yourself out of the market if you do. The only scope you have is to reduce your prices, but since the profit margin is so tight you will quickly start feeling the pinch if you drop below the going rate.
Within this established industry you have fairly stable overheads to cover – notably your car, fuel, and pupil generation. If you are solo, a car is going to cost between about £80-£150 a week just to have sitting on your driveway. Fuel will run to £50-£100 a week if you are working 30 hours. Pupil generation is more difficult to cost, but a small advert in Yellow Pages might cost £600 for a year, and that works out to about £12 a week, so let’s just go with that. Overall, you could easily be paying £200 in business overheads.
If you went with a national franchise then you might have to pay £200 just for the car. Fuel would still be needed, but advertising would be taken care of. It seems like no contest, doesn’t it? Pay £200 on your own, or around £280 with a franchise. But this is where the established solo ADIs are very misguided when they start dishing out advice. Because they do not take into account the all-important turnover, which is obviously the primary key to success as a driving instructor.
There is virtually no chance that a newly-qualified ADI will be able to generate 30 hours of new pupils on their own within a realistic advertising budget (in my first year I did the Yellow Pages thing and got literally zero response; and I also spent £150 on three separate monthly ads in a local free newspaper, which also got zero response), and especially not if they’re charging the local going rate for lessons. Inevitably, they will cut their prices to try and attract business, but at best they will only get maybe 10-15 hours of work (and that after many weeks of trying). So in an area where the going rate for lessons is £25, they will be charging perhaps £20, giving them a turnover of up to £300 a week. Their weekly pre-tax profit will be a mere £100 (or £5,200 a year).
If that same newly-qualified ADI went with a franchise and could therefore charge the going rate of £25, and if the franchiser delivered the promised 30 hours of work, they would have a turnover of £750 and a pre-tax profit of £470 (or £24,400 a year). Suddenly, the franchise option isn’t quite as unattractive as it first seemed, is it?
Just about every new ADI gets it into their head that they’re going to corner the market and have work coming out of their ears. And just about every new ADI quickly discovers that this is nonsense after several months of trying. The surprising thing is that no one ever seems to learn from this. Many stick at it – and then go back to salaried employment as bankruptcy looms. And it all happens because they couldn’t see beyond paying slightly more to a franchiser and getting the work, choosing instead to forge ahead alone and get no work at all. Worse still is the fact that those who survive then persist in passing on the same misguided advice to those who come after them. My favourite line from those who haven’t got a clue what they’re talking about is:
Why pay money to a franchiser when you could have it in your own pocket?
If a franchiser is guaranteeing work, you’d have to be nuts to risk going it alone, especially if you have no knowledge of how to get the work by yourself. Most new ADIs definitely do not have that knowledge. Unfortunately, they’re also dumb enough to listen to stupid people who don’t do this job as their sole source of income, and yet who offer highly misleading “advice” as if they did.
Once you are established, and generating your own work through referrals (where previous pupils recommend you to family and friends), it makes perfect sense to consider going solo. It’s still not as black and white as the “experts” would have you believe since work can fluctuate dramatically, but at least you are likely to be able to take the financial risk by this time. Newly-qualified ADIs usually do not have that luxury.
Note the more recent addendum at the end of this article. Also note the original publication date – 2015.
Regular readers will know that I started taking card payments for lessons a couple of years ago. I initially opted for PayPal’s system because I liked what it was offering, but although I purchased a card reader from them I never actually used it and sent it back for a refund.
PayPal Here, which was what the system was called, was brand new at the time and I don’t think the people who were dealing with it knew how it worked. I was given copious amounts of conflicting information, but the bottom line was that there was a strong likelihood that any payments I took using PayPal Here would be tied up for 30 days at a time (i.e. “held in reserve”) until I could access them. To a driving instructor this is totally unacceptable.
As a result of this confusion, I went with iZettle.
Now, I need to make it absolutely clear that in the two plus years I have been using iZettle I have had no complaints at all. I have taken close to £40,000 and probably only had to go the the bank a handful of times, whereas before I’d be going several times a week to pay in cash or cheques. But this perfect time came to an abrupt end two weeks ago.
During my time with iZettle I have used an HTC One M7, then the M8, and now the M9. All these phones have worked flawlessly, including the M9 I bought almost a year ago, both with the main iZettle app and the beta version I was trialling for them. However, on 7 October the iZettle app was one of several for which a routine update was flagged. I did my usual “update all”, and my phone reported a 505 error and the message “this app could not be installed” for the iZettle app. I uninstalled the previous version and tried again, but to no avail. Now I was relying solely on the beta app to run my business – not a good position to be in. I should point out that the app has updated without problem on the M9 several times this year.
I ran through every suggested fix for the 505 error offered by Google, checking for remnants of previous versions, and running clean-ups, but still the app would not install. The Android marketplace said it was compatible with my M9, but it just would not install on this high-end, modern device running the latest version of Android. So I turned to iZettle. Their reply was:
I was unable to find your handheld device on our compatibility list. Unfortunately given the case we cannot fully guarantee the device functionality.
A cold wind of apprehension blew over me. I wrote back and explained that it had been fine up until this last update, that the M9 is virtually identical to the M8, and that there had been no system updates. I further explained that my business depended on iZettle. They came back with:
Thank you for getting back to us and for your feedback,
Although the M9 is almost identical to the M8 is still a different android device that currently is not supported by our services. As I mentioned on my previous message unfortunately we are not able to make any promises for when or if we will be adding your handheld device to our compatibility list.
So that was it. After two years of loyal custom it was “f— you”. They have not responded to my third email informing them that their app is incorrectly listed in the Android marketplace as being compatible with my device. My previous opinions concerning iZettle were obviously wrong, and they are unprofessional and untrustworthy.
When 3rd parties talk of “compatibility” – and particularly with card readers like the iZettle – what they are referring to is the version of the Bluetooth stack used on the phone and the one used by the device in question. Indeed, iZettle alludes to this with their new Pro Contactless reader, where they say:
Please note that the Card Reader Pro Contactless should work with most Android smartphones and tablets which have Bluetooth and an Internet connection, and where the iZettle app can be downloaded.
I have the older version of this reader (two, in fact, as I needed to be covered in case one of them got damaged). But my problem has nothing to do with Bluetooth – I just can’t install the app, and that points to poorly written software. But let’s go along with this “unsupported” thing for a moment. When you look at their compatibility list, [Note: As of 2020 they say they’re compatible with all smartphones and tablets. I can assure you that in 2015 they were officially compatible with about six plus the iPhone and refused to even discus any problems outside that tiny number, even where there had been compatibility previously] it essentially distils down to all Apple iPhones and iPads, all Samsung Galaxy devices, two Nexus, two Sonys, and two HTCs (but not the M9)! And apart from the Samsungs, only up to Android 4.4.2 and 4.4.4 (latest version is 5.1.1). Can you believe that? And even if you have a phone that isn’t on the list – of which there should be many, according to that last quote – with which the iZettle system works, then iZettle’s abysmal support agent who wrote to me has effectively said that it could stop working at any time if it isn’t specifically on the list!
iZettle is an absolute joke, and I advise anyone thinking of going for a card reader not to go anywhere near them. I also apologise for not knowing this sooner – my previous reports of iZettle have been highly positive, and that just goes to show how wrong you can be.
iZettle effectively destroyed my business overnight. It is only because I don’t get caught out that easily that I quickly found an alternative solution and managed to minimise the catastrophe that not being able to take card payments has become to my business. That solution was PayPal Here – more on that in a separate article soon, and note the Q&A below.
Shortly after I wrote this article iZettle saw it and contacted me. It turns out that the 505 error being returned was down to having the beta version of the app installed. iZettle tell me that they forgot to change the package name on the beta app when the new main app was released, and that meant that there was a conflict – hence the error being produced.
After uninstalling the beta app – which iZettle wanted me to trial for them, remember – the main app installed with no trouble at all.
Fair dues to iZettle – they fully admitted to their error (eventually, and after virtually destroying my business) – and said that the reply I got from support was not correct. Unfortunately, that incorrect information was all I was given over a period of two weeks, and it was delivered several times before iZettle support refused point blank to enter into any further dialogue over it. The subsequent damage done to my business during those two weeks – and what action I had to take as a result – cannot be undone. Nor can the lack of trust created by people who would cut off a customer like that ever be repaired.
How long does it take for iZettle deposits to appear in your account?
Too long, compared to PayPal Here. If you take a card payment with iZettle, the transaction is “initiated within 1-2 business days”. Weekends and bank holidays are not business days. Then – and I don’t think iZettle uses the Faster Payment system – it can take a further “several days” for the money to show up in your bank account. It means that over Easter, for example, you could take a payment late Wednesday/early Thursday, and the transaction at iZettle’s end won’t start until the following Tuesday. Then, your own bank could take the rest of the week, and since they may not class weekends as business days, either, you might not get your money until the following Monday. Also remember that iZettle is based in Sweden, and they have bank holidays, too.
Admittedly, this is a worst case scenario, but I can promise you that it was not uncommon to wait a week for money to show up. With PayPal, you get it immediately – every day of the week.
Is iZettle reliable?
When I used them, there were several occasions where the system was playing up, resulting a delay to payments of a day or two. Not many, but several. I have also read of several problems since then. I have had zero problems in the years I have been using PayPal Here.
And then there was the serious problem that nearly destroyed my business overnight…
Quite frankly, I would not use iZettle if they were the only card reader provider on the planet.
Who owns iZettle?
When I had all these problems, iZettle was privately owned and based in Sweden. In 2018, PayPal bought them out. So they are owned by PayPal. And quite frankly, the sooner PayPal assimilates the brand completely, the better.
Update 2023: PayPal has discontinued PayPal Here and now only offers iZettle (or Zettle, as it calls it). So, it went exactly the opposite way to what I had hoped and expected. iZettle is still based in Sweden, and it still has the inferior payment system it had before. PayPal gave me less than one month’s notice – in early March 2023 – that the PayPal Here service would cease to function at all in early April. As a result, I no longer use PayPal.
I would not touch iZettle again if you paid me, as I think I have made clear.
I don’t have a particular problem with the first two, though I do have some niggles about the satnav thing. But that last one is a real no-no as far as I’m concerned.
At the moment a candidate is expected to do one manoeuvre from turn in the road, reverse around a corner, parallel park, and reverse bay park. Before independent driving was introduced, they used to have to do two of these manoeuvres on their tests. I always supported independent driving, but I wasn’t happy at the loss of the manoeuvre – I saw it as a dumbing down of the driving test. But what they are proposing now is that instead of a candidate having to do either a turn in the road or reverse around a corner, they’d have to either drive forward into a bay and reverse out of it, or reverse and rejoin traffic (parallel park and reverse bay park are still in there). A monkey could do those things.
Pupils struggle with the reverse around a corner, and it is a significant source of test failures. However, as per this article:
Ministers want to improve the driving test pass rate, which is languishing below 50 per cent.
There’s the rub! The proposed changes are not intended to improve the driving test. They’re intended to make it easier.
Personally, I cannot understand why DVSA would want to actually test someone on something as mundane as stopping on the right side of the road. All of my pupils get to do it at one time or another, usually when we’re pulling up outside their house; but sometimes when we’re going to do a parallel park on a particular road I use, or if I need to pull over urgently and talk about something and there’s nowhere to do it on the left. I should also add that the roads we do it on are quiet urban roads – not busy A roads.
As usual, some instructors seem to be confused over what the Highway Code (HC) says. They are suggesting that it is illegal to park facing traffic so DVSA is wrong to ask candidates to do it. Here’s the actual HC wording:
Parking (rules 239 to 247)
Rule 239
Use off-street parking areas, or bays marked out with white lines on the road as parking places, wherever possible. If you have to stop on the roadside:
do not park facing against the traffic flow
[rule continues]
The section this is in in the HC is titled “Parking”, and the first bullet point says “do not park…” The $64,000 question is: if you stop temporarily, are you parking? Look at the next rule:
Rule 240
You MUST NOT stop or park on:
[rule continues]
a road marked with double white lines, even when a broken white line is on your side of the road, except to pick up or set down passengers, or to load or unload goods
[rule continues]
So, although Rule 240 says it is illegal (i.e. you MUST NOT) to park on a road with double white lines, you can stop to pick up or set down passengers, or to load/unload goods. Considering how that works in the real world, a lorry or van might stop and take up to 30 minutes – maybe more – to load or unload goods and not be breaking the Law, though if the same vehicle stopped and its driver went into the newsagents – even for less than a minute – then it would.
In Rule 239, though, there is no Law to break (i.e. do not). And since the distinction between stopping and parking has been made in Rule 240, it follows that pulling over to drop someone off (or to be tested on how well you do it) isn’t actually wrong. Even if you parked up and left your vehicle you wouldn’t be breaking any Law – you’d just be going against HC advice.
DVSA is not doing anything wrong in asking candidates to pull up on the right. It’s just so pointlessly simple an exercise that you have to question it as a replacement for the original manoeuvres.
But as I say, the government wants to increase the pass rate, and this is the way they’re going to do it.
A reader has asked for advice on a roundabout in Lichfield (I think the same roundabout is also the subject of a forum debate at the moment). My How to do Roundabouts article continues to be popular, but I thought I’d cover this question separately because that article is quite big.
The question asked by the reader is simply: which lane should I use on the roundabout if I am travelling from A to B?
The question arises – in part, at least – from the fact that although it is “straight ahead” it is not the 2nd but the 3rd exit. The reader also suggests that people using the roundabout all do it differently.
I notice from the forum discussion I mentioned, and assuming that it is the same roundabout they’re talking about, that the “12 o’clock rule” has reared its ugly head again. Let me just clarify: there is no such thing as the 12 o’clock rule, and any such imagined rule has no bearing on how to negotiate this roundabout.
First of all, entry to the roundabout at A is from a single lane, but it is wide enough for two vehicles at the give way line. Two of the five joining roads are clearly marked as two lanes. The roundabout itself is not marked, but it is easily wide enough to accommodate two vehicles side-by-side. Therefore, it is safe to treat the roundabout as having two lanes. The big question is: should you use the left or the right hand lane when travelling A to B?
The Highway Code says the following:
Rule 186
Signals and position. When taking the first exit to the left, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise
signal left and approach in the left-hand lane
keep to the left on the roundabout and continue signalling left to leave.
When taking an exit to the right or going full circle, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise
signal right and approach in the right-hand lane
keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to exit the roundabout
signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want.
When taking any intermediate exit, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise
select the appropriate lane on approach to and on the roundabout
you should not normally need to signal on approach
stay in this lane until you need to alter course to exit the roundabout
signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want.
When there are more than three lanes at the entrance to a roundabout, use the most appropriate lane on approach and through it.
That’s not much help with the Lichfield roundabout, is it? I mean, it doesn’t tell you exactly how you should position. However, the picture which is used in the Highway Code, and which I think dates from a time when the rule was more specific, is much more useful.
Note the car with the blue arrow going straight ahead. It is shown in the left hand lane, and this is the default way you should approach a roundabout until you see/know/suspect differently. In fact, if any other positioning is required it will be covered by signs and road markings (if not now, certainly after a few accidents).
So in the case of the Lichfield roundabout, and with A and B being almost directly opposite each other, everything points to using the left hand lane to travel A to B. But what about those who argue you should do it in the right hand lane?
Well, let’s go down to ground level and start considering others using the roundabout. Note that when I refer to exit numbers, these are referenced from road A.
If someone was approaching the roundabout from the 1st exit after A, also intending to take route B, there is absolutely no way that they would use anything other than the left hand lane. Since the roundabout is quite large, the spacing between exits means that it would be perfectly acceptable for traffic to enter it from both A and the 1st exit at the same time under normal circumstances.
Imagine the problems if traffic from A used the right hand lane and both streams arrived at B at the same time. Going one step further, imagine that traffic entering from the 1st exit intended to go straight ahead to the 4th exit (just after B). It would correctly use the left hand lane, but anyone in the right hand lane intending to take route B would then be in avoidable conflict with that stream as they tried to exit across it.
Now obviously, there could be traffic legitimately using the right hand lane (turning right from the 4th exit to take route B, but that would just be normal roundabout behaviour and it shouldn’t cause problems unless someone was driving badly. As for signalling, you would do what you would do at any other normal roundabout when taking an intermediate exit: no signal on approach, and signal left as you pass the exit just before the one you require.
In conclusion, there is no question that drivers taking the path A-B should be using the left hand lane/position on approach, and that they should remain in that position on the roundabout. Since there is no such thing as “the 12 o’clock rule”, that doesn’t come into it at all and it should not alter normal positioning or signalling behaviour.
Finally, a caveat. If absolutely everyone else uses the right hand lane because they know something that strangers don’t, then you seriously have to consider doing it the same way. For example, if traffic backs up on to the roundabout at rush hour, and people use the right hand lane knowing they can cut back across later, there is no reason why you couldn’t do the same – but only when conditions are such that you need to. At other times – and certainly if traffic is as light as it appears on the Google images I’ve used here – you should deal with it properly.
This story was published in June 2013. I’ve updated it because of some recent activity involving the registration number MAF1E.
I only reported this a few days ago, but The Sun is in on the act now. Surprisingly, The Sun story is actually more accurate than all the others. The Sun article carries this graphic, which is quite useful.
Although it focuses on middle-lane hogs in the text (like everyone else does), the graphic makes it clear that the following examples of careless driving would also be included in the new legislation:
bad lane discipline (which includes middle-lane hogging)
tailgating
not giving way at junctions
wheel-spins and handbrake turns
wrong lane on roundabout
inappropriate speed
overtaking and queue-jumping
ignoring “lane closed” signs
Also, and in spite of what some of the other stories reported or implied, the changes do not specifically apply to motorways. They will apply to all roads.
The term “careless driving” encompasses “driving without due care and attention”. The definition is quite wide, but in a nutshell you’d be guilty of driving without due care and attention if the care and skills you demonstrated in an incident were less than that which could have been expected of a reasonable, prudent, and competent driver.
The media stories give the impression that someone somewhere has specifically decided to crack down on tailgating and lane-hogging (these feature in just about every media survey of peoples’ pet hates). In fact, what they have actually decided is that getting too close to the vehicle in front and poor lane discipline – both of which you could still be prosecuted for even now – will become manageable by FPNs. That’s where the police can slap you with a fine and 3 points by the roadside. Poor lane discipline in particular covers more than just middle-lane hogging.
And it isn’t just those two things that will be included, either. People who drive dangerously through inattention, or just because they’re bad drivers, are also potentially walking a tightrope. Personally, I’ve lost count of the number of people who habitually get into the wrong lane at roundabouts and then – deliberately or otherwise – try to move across while they’re on it. Or those who cannot stay in position and cut across you (that’s an almost guaranteed test fail, and Mafie (reg. no. MAF1E, or MAF 1E) in her big-ass 4×4 on the Ring Road on Sunday should bear this in mind in future – not to mention what constitutes an illegal number plate).
Pulling out of junctions without looking properly is also on the hit list, as is showing off and driving too slowly.
Edit: Worth pointing out that I saw Mafie up to her old tricks again a few days ago (July 2013). She was on Bobbers Mill Road trying to do a U-turn across four lanes of traffic using a junction on the opposite side of the road to where she was. Absolutely no consideration for anyone except herself. She could easily have driven a few hundred metres and turned around safely – and much more quickly. This woman is incapable of driving safely – let alone of safely driving a huge 4×4.
Edit: Someone has recently (October 2015) been searching for “number plates” and “maf1e”. I did a quick check on Google to see what “maf1e” brings up and that registration number appears to be quite mobile. Someone posted a photo of a BMW X6 on a website which is similar to my Hall of Shame, with a badly parked BMW X6 in Southampton. Here it is.
To be honest, I can’t remember what model the 4×4 was in Nottingham, but it could have been an X6.
Then it gets even more curious. Apparently, there is a Rolls Royce Wraith with the registration number MAF 1E. Here’s that, dated 2012.
I’d love to know how this works. You see, as far as I know you can only use a given number plate – like MAF1E – on one specific vehicle. You can transfer it, of course, but not immediately (it takes between 4 days and six weeks, and involves changes to paperwork).
At the moment, assuming that the MAF1E I’ve seen screwing up (twice in 2013) is not the same MAF1E seen in Southampton (in 2011), the Rolls Royce (2012) and the Nottingham MAF1E appear to be driving around with the same plate – at the same time.
It’s possible that the 2011 4×4 sold its plates to the Rolls Royce in 2012, then he subsequently sold them again in 2013. In fact, as I write this, MAF1E is available to buy for about £5,400. Maybe the rich and stupid really do move these things around every few months.
I saw a new driving school advertising recently. They argue that – in their opinion – the franchise model is “out of date and useless”. Their model isn’t, they say, “a franchise per se”, and what say they are offering comes across as a non-PAYE, but nevertheless salaried job. They say that you state the number of hours you want to work and they pay you a “guaranteed weekly income” which doesn’t change “even if your pupils cancel their lessons”. They also provide 4 weeks paid holiday per annum.
What they don’t say is how much that weekly wage is.
Looking at their website, things become very confusing. On it, they say that they offer a salary with up to 28 days of paid holiday, PAYE with up to 28 days paid holiday, and both full and part-time header box franchises. I can’t quite work out the difference between the first two, but the last one suggests that perhaps the franchise model isn’t quite as dead as they had previously suggested. A company car is an additional option, and they still don’t say what the weekly wage is (you have to contact them for that).
Let’s just clarify what the bottom line in this job is.
You need a car
You need to put fuel in the car
You need paying pupils
Your hourly rate has to enable you to pay/provide all of the above
Getting a car and buying fuel is easy and these two together (assuming you work 30 hours) will cost you between £120 and £200 per week – and that is true, no matter what the forum gods might claim. Getting pupils and setting an hourly rate that they are prepared to pay are more problematic, though. If the forum gods have convinced you to go solo, you’ll have to advertise, and since you’re going to be desperate for work as a new ADI (and quite possibly as an experienced one from what I’ve read) you can’t risk putting people off with the top-end lesson prices that the likes of The AA and RED can get away with (they’ll be charging £25 and up). You’ll most likely have to pitch in at around £20, and this means that you will have to work for around 8 hours or so each week just to cover your overheads. In all honesty, a new ADI who has been persuaded to start out solo could struggle along for several months before they generate that much work, and quite a few never get there – all because they set off on a difficult trek that they weren’t prepared for.
Like most skills and products that are well established, driving instruction does not have a particularly high profit margin, and to get a decent income you have to do the hours and/or charge sensible hourly rates. It’s the difficulty achieving this which is one of the main reasons people attempt to move into “premium” territory – teaching children to drive, or using high-spec cars as tuition vehicles, for example, where ridiculously high fees can be demanded from wealthy parents and Hooray Henrys who are simply too stupid to realise that a) driving lessons are driving lessons, however you dress them up, b) driving instructors are driving instructors, no matter what car they drive, and c) teaching children to drive is an abstract concept that is likely to carry at least as many negatives as it does positives when you try to extrapolate it into the real world. For the newly-qualified ADI, a better option is to get outside help in the form of a franchise. The franchiser does all the advertising and – in theory – supplies all the pupils (and in spite of what they forum gods will claim, many of them do). Buying into a franchise raises the bottom line slightly, since they will have overheads to cover as well, and although hourly lesson rates will usually be higher, you’ll find that perhaps you now have to work around 10 hours to cover your costs. The big difference is that if the franchiser is doing their job right, you’ll have enough work to cover it.
This brings us back to that guaranteed salary claim. The school offering it has overheads to cover, and it can only do so if it can provide the work – and if the franchisee does that work – exactly the same situation whether you were solo or franchised to a bigger school. There is no way that they could go on paying their drivers not to do deliver lessons for any length of time, and I would imagine that the “salary” is sufficient to cover the pseudo-franchise cost and little else. I simply cannot see it providing £400-£500 a week when there is no net income to cover that expense. Keeping it low means that ADIs would be discouraged from being deliberately inactive. Similarly, I would also imagine that there is a fairly strong termination clause targeted at those ADIs who might inevitably see this “salary” as a some sort of meal ticket.
It’s certainly an interesting idea, and quite possibly offered with the best of intentions. But there are quite a few inconsistencies apparent which haven’t been addressed, and overall it seems that it’s just a franchise with some bells and whistles.
also potentially walking a tightrope. Personally, I’ve lost count of the number of people who habitually get into the wrong lane at roundabouts and then – deliberately or otherwise – try to move across while they’re on it. Or those who cannot stay in position and cut across you (that’s an almost guaranteed test fail, and Mafie (reg. no. MAF1E, or MAF 1E) in her big-ass 4×4 on the Ring Road on Sunday should bear this in mind in future – not to mention what constitutes an illegal number plate).
