Someone found the blog on that precise search term. The arseholes on Nottingham’s City Council have made it very difficult for the average driver with their overdue tram and the resulting speed limit changes.
Within the city ward there is the council’s “blanket 20mph speed limit on urban roads”. Not all urban roads, you understand. No, the morons couldn’t justify making it 20mph on all roads. So you find yourself moving from a 20mph zone, to a 30, then back to a 20 again, all in the space of a few dozen metres. But then you have the boroughs, who haven’t adopted the same policy, and to add to the confusion some areas of those (e.g. West Bridgford, in Rushcliffe Borough) are several miles closer to the city centre than some city areas (e.g. Clifton and Wilford).
Then there is the criminally inaccurate signage. There are still city areas where the original 30mph signs haven’t been taken down, and these stand isolated between the new 20mph signs. Much of the signage is probably illegal or non-enforceable, since it is of the wrong size – the City Council totally underestimated how many signs it would have to erect, and how much that would cost, so as well as the old 30mph signs it couldn’t afford to remove, it also couldn’t afford to replace existing large 20mph signs (where an old 30mph zone changed to 20mph) to smaller ones (now that those 20mph zones are within a larger 20mph zone). This breaches the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD) legislation.
Beeston and Chilwell are not within the city boundary, and speed limits there vary for reasons other than the incompetence and bloody-mindedness of the City’s Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing. To answer the question used to find the blog, the speed limit on Chilwell High Street (actually, it’s Chilwell Road at the Beeston end and High Road at the Chilwell end) is 30mph along most of it. However, outside the Clown College for a distance of a couple of hundred metres it is 20mph. There are signs, but they are about half way in size between the big ones and the smaller repeaters, and they aren’t easily visible among the tram ironwork littering the place. At the time of writing they do not appear on Google Earth or Google Maps since the imagery on there was taken while tram construction was still incomplete.*
* It’s still incomplete now, but less so than it was then.
I’ve heard a lot of complaints lately about the waiting times for driving tests. DVSA knows there is a problem and it is trying to deal with it though what that article doesn’t mention is the back door solution also being looked at, which involves making the test so easy that a monkey could pass it. Mark my words: that second solution is the one that they’ll go with (assuming the public consultation that will follow the trial a) doesn’t overwhelmingly come out against it, and b) if it does, the consultation isn’t ignored).
That Despatch article explains why waiting times have gone up. First, there is the upturn in the economy, which means people are taking tests in greater numbers (for many, it adds a vital string to their bow when job hunting). Second, DVSA says it has had more examiners retiring. Third, DVSA says there has been a surge in 20-somethings taking their tests after putting it off (I’m not sure why they give this as a separate reason, as it is just the first one worded differently.
Quite frankly, DVSA should have seen the examiner crisis coming and dealt with it long before it became a problem. Come to think of it, they also ought to have anticipated the country coming out of recession, because it was pretty bloody obvious that it was going to end sooner or later. I detected the upturn as long ago as early 2014 – I wrote about it on the blog – yet DVSA says it only predicted an increase in the number of tests “late last year”. I’m sure I recall them predicting a fall in the numbers of those taking tests within the same time frame as all of this even though their own data show a sustained increase in tests from January 2013 onwards (and that was during the depths of the recession).
None of it makes any sense. And to top it all, there’s only been a 5% increase in the number of tests taken between January and March 2015 compared with the same period last year – yet waiting times have gone up by more than 100%.
Recruiting new examiners will take ages. From what I’ve read on certain forums they’re only on the situational judgement test (the earliest part of recruitment process) even now, in spite of claiming that recruitment started in October 2014 (it may be a different intake, of course, though it is more likely that “starting” something in civil service speak translates into taking almost a year before it turns into “doing” it). The actual training and probationary periods alone add up to over 10 months before anyone can be a fully-functioning examiner, and before that there are other tests intended to sort the wheat from the chaff. Allowing for the typical civil service efficiency noted above you can probably add up to six weeks of dead time between each of the stages, so we’ll be lucky if we see any examiners from this source before 2017. Of course, that leaves another possible back door open, and I can see them trying to fast track unsuitable people through the training programme.
Phew. I wrote a lot more than I intended there once I got going. The real reason I did this article, though, was the because of an item I got on the newsfeeds concerning Liverpool’s test waiting times – between 9 and 13 weeks, apparently. Well, my local test centres are officially claiming between 9 and 13 weeks, but I can assure you that one pupil who booked a test a few weeks ago could only get one in January 2016. When I worked it out, it must have been about 19 or 20 weeks. That’s around 10 weeks more than the official figure, and it’s a discrepancy I have been seeing for the whole of this year – with actual waiting times being considerably (and consistently) greater than the officially reported ones.
I also note from that news item that a local instructor is claiming that the long waiting times are costing him work, because people want tests quickly and they therefore go to other parts of the country if they can’t get them in Liverpool! Now, it may be a Liverpool thing, and perhaps people there really do go elsewhere if they can’t get an early test date. But the question I would ask is: where? The Manchester area has official waiting times of between 5 and 9 weeks, which in reality is probably closer to 15 weeks. Leeds is officially almost as bad as Liverpool. Anyone traveling further afield than that is crazy. My own pupils have been shopping around, I must admit, but only to book tests at the local test centre with the best time. Anyone who comes to me in September wanting to pass before Christmas, I tell them straight that they have got virtually no chance – and especially not if they haven’t even done their theory test yet.
Incidentally, that same instructor also claims his franchisees all have full diaries. In that case, you can’t say that you’re losing work – turning it down because you can’t accommodate it is not “losing” it. You’re only losing it if you want it and need it, but it goes elsewhere.
He also says that DVSA don’t pay examiners to work weekends anymore. Again, I can’t speak for Liverpool, but DVSA says in that Despatch article I linked to at the start that examiners are being encouraged “to work additional hours to provide more tests.” One of my current pupils has got a Sunday test in mid-October, which he booked in early August (that was 10 weeks even then), so – and as I say, unless Liverpool is different – that instructor’s comments are incorrect.
Another Liverpool instructor is quoted as saying that the number of tests decreased over the last few years. I refer again to the official DVSA figures, which do not back up this claim at all. In December 2012 they carried out around 100,000 tests, but since then the number has steadily increased, to over 150,000 in April 2015. The most tests conducted in a single month was around 170,000 in October 2007 so we are very nearly at that same level right now.
The only relevant factor has to be the number of people eligible for (and trying to) take the driving test. Irrespective of retirements or anything else, if they are conducting almost as many tests as they were back in 2007 (and they are), then if the waiting time is increasing it simply has to be just that more people want tests than in 2007! And only that.
Of course, you then have to ask who these additional test candidates really are. Can they all be 20-somethings who decided not to learn during the recession? My own observations suggest not.
There is talk of partly privatising the driving test itself, closing test centres, and increasing the age of self-certification from 70 to 75 years. The article states:
Ministers want to improve the driving test pass rate, which is languishing below 50 per cent. The document states that there is “anecdotal evidence” that ill-prepared learners are booking their test date after only a handful of lessons, possibly because of concerns over waiting times between booking and taking the practical examination.
This is complete bollocks. The pass rate has gone up every year since 2002, and 47% is hardly “languishing” below 50. And waiting times have only gone up over the last year, so God only knows where this “anecdotal evidence” has come from. Here are the historical pass rates:
2002/3
2003/4
2004/5
2005/6
2006/7
2007/8
2008/9
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
43.2
42.8
14.9
42.6
43.3
44.2
45.3
45.9
46.3
46.9
47.1
47.1
46.9
I couldn’t find any data from before 2002, and that figure from 2004/5 has to be an error, but here’s what the data look like (without 2004/5) when plotted on a graph:
It’s bad enough that the Independent hacks didn’t research it properly, but I really do wish that those people cutting-and-pasting it on to forums would do their homework first. The situation is not as the Government (or the Independent) is reporting it, and that makes it invalid as the justification for change. The Government is merely pursuing an agenda – more on that in a moment.
The driving test pass rate has always “languished” below 100% for the simple reason that not everyone passes the test! The reason they don’t pass is because there is effectively a “pass mark” – dictated by the driver fault/serious fault boundary – which quite simply means that if they don’t drive well enough on the day then they will fail. It’s nature in action, and it results in a national pass rate of around 47% at the moment. You wouldn’t expect it to change much year on year unless someone was fiddling the results.
But that’s what the Government is proposing. One of the ways they will do it is already being trialled, and the actual changes being looked at include replacing most of the existing manoeuvres (which people can currently easily fail at) with ones that only a complete idiot could fail at. I mean, they are looking to replace the turn in the road and reverse round a corner manoeuvres with “pulling over on the right” and “reversing”!
To get an idea of what the Government is trying to do, you only have to look at the GCSE grading system. GCSEs are graded A to G and – like it or not – every one of those grades is officially considered to be a “pass”. It means that the “pass rate” for GCSEs has been above 97% since 1989, and every year you have people walking around with Es, Fs, and Gs pretending – having been led to believe – that they have a “pass”, when the reality is that no employer (or university) in the land is going to be demanding a handful of Gs in order to be considered for a position with them. The only grades that mean anything are the As, Bs, and Cs, and that brings the “pass rate” down to around 60%. Consider also that under the old O Level system, I believe that around 40% of candidates achieved an A-C grade (anything below that was NOT a pass), and you can see how the figures have been artificially elevated – don’t get me started on how GCSEs are far easier than ‘O’ Levels were.
But this is what they are proposing to do with the driving test. They want to make it so easy only a complete moron would ever fail it, and this will bring the “pass rate” up. What they blatantly fail to realise is that the higher pass rate will bear no relation to actual driving standards. In fact, it will mask a serious decline, as candidates will not be required to master more difficult skills and will only be asked to demonstrate much easier ones. Yet these people will be sent out on the roads with full driving licences.
There is mention in the Independent article of “the private sector [being] asked to help to fill any shortages of examiners and test centres.” I can’t get as worked up over this as some ADIs seem to be doing. It doesn’t specify who the “private sector” are, and it’s only the usual bunch of anti-DVSA instructors who are assuming that it means random people taken off the streets.
Another change that looks like it is going to happen anyway is that people will no longer have to declare themselves fit to drive when they reach 70. The age limit will be raised to 75. This is frightening.
I’m sorry, but they’ve not got the complete story. It isn’t just pointless signs, but also ones which are blatantly wrong – erected by incompetent people employed in sinecures at local councils.
In Nottingham, a good place to start when putting things right would be with the “Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing”. The sooner the clown who holds that position is put somewhere where she can do less damage, the better it would be for everyone.
I’ve already mentioned how she has been directly responsible for hundreds – if not thousands – of 20mph signs being erected in her quest for a blanket 20mph speed limit. But what she also failed to do was make sure the old 30mph signs were removed. The image above is one I took back in May this year, but there are numerous locations where there is the same problem. Most of them are still there. Furthermore, in changing 30mph limits to 20mph ones, the fact that there were already 20mph zones within those areas means that much of the signage is the wrong size.
I believe I am correct in saying that a large sign is legally required at the start of any given speed zone, and smaller repeater signs are used within that as reminders (unless it’s a 30mph zone, in which case the presence of street lighting is the “reminder”). In changing the 30mph signs to 20mph, whole areas now have larger 20mph signs INSIDE the new 20mph zones, which implies that the limit changes at that point. The inconsistent use of 20mph repeaters in the new zones means that motorists could easily be misled.
As an aside, I have been sent some raw data files which show the results of the public consultations on the 20mph speed limit. I won’t spoil it, but watch out for a separate article on that.
lane is marked obe route only do i beed ro ibdicate
I didn’t realise that catching a cold could carry over into someone’s typing. Either that, or they were typing in the dark (I hope and pray they weren’t doing it while they were driving, though that’s an increasingly likely problem these days).
The translation is:
lane is marked one route only do I need to indicate?
What this person is asking is to do with road markings and left-only and right-only arrows. The short answer is no. If the lane only goes in one direction and is marked as such then there is technically no need to indicate.
It’s not quite as simple as that, though. You have to ask yourself if the direction the lane goes is clearly visible to everyone behind you – visitors who may not know what you know, for example. And does the volume of traffic make it hard for people to see the arrows on the road?
I suspect the question is related to someone’s driving test, quite possibly because they have already failed one, or because they’re starting to worry about one they have booked. The first thing I’d do is ask your driving instructor – he should know what to do at the junction in question. If you’re not taking lessons with an ADI then you could phone your local test centre and ask for advice. The examiners are usually only to glad to help and they usually know the area well. Unless you clear it up directly with them, the problem you have is knowing what the examiners expect, and this can vary from centre to centre and around the country. There is no absolute answer, unfortunately.
With my own pupils on lessons, if they don’t indicate in a situation where they really didn’t need to (but could have), I always try to get to the bottom of why – did they decide it wasn’t needed, or did they just forget?
Something I always point out, though, is:
if you signal when you really don’t need to, the worst that could happen is that you’ll get a driver (minor) fault
if you don’t signal when the examiner thinks you should have, you could get a serious fault
Note that I am referring to the exact query made at the start of this article, and nothing else. Your signals should not be misleading. But nor should your lack of signals be misleading, either. And this applies only to learners and normal drivers only – if you’re doing your Part 2 test, signalling when you don’t need to is a driving fault.
If a pupil tells me they decided not to signal (and if they’re correct), I am happy with that. But if they tell me they forgot, then I’d much rather they signalled without absolute need in future (as long as they aren’t misleading anyone) to develop their MSM skills. Instructors just need to face facts that in the real world you are not going to get all your learners (or normal drivers) to make instant and perfect decisions, and sometimes it pays to err on the side of caution with a technically unnecessary signal.
Warning: this is an old article (though anyone reading it in 2023 would be forgiven for thinking it is current).
Back in January signs went up on the Colwick Loop Road near the Victoria Retail Park. They were the standard “screw you” type much loved by Nottingham City/County Council, gleefully declaring that road works would commence on 19 January 2015 for 30 weeks. Naturally, delays were “expected”.
Well, for anyone who has been keeping count, 16 August marked the end of 30 weeks. As I write this, they are nearly two weeks behind, and judging from the temporary lights and rubble-strewn verges they still have several more weeks to go.
What was particularly irritating about these road works – other than the fact that they cut off yet another route into and out of the city – was the fact that the cones and speed restrictions went up at 8am on 19 January, and yet not a single piece of work took place on the Loop Road until the middle of April. So, we had to endure 15 weeks of traffic jams and rush hour delays for absolutely no benefit.
On the subject of benefit, Council’s road works website still doesn’t identify the purpose of these works. All it says is:
Nottinghamshire County Council is carrying out essential works in this area. This is to ensure that we provide a safe and reliable road network to our road users.
This is complete bollocks. The only purpose of these works is to give access to a new Sainsbury’s superstore which is being built on the industrial estate. The works are not “essential” and they are of virtually no benefit to the motorist. In fact, the additional junction on the Loop Road, the extra traffic, and the fact that the railway bridge can still only accommodate one lane of traffic each way all ensure that the motorist is going to get hammered once everything is finished.
I first heard what they were up to from a pupil whose husband worked for the Council. It seems to be common knowledge now, even if the Council is still trying to pretend otherwise. I came across official confirmation that they’re building a Sainsbury’s when I was using Open Street Maps to plot a GPS trace using my GPS tracker recently – the site is clearly labelled, as shown here in the large circle.
As an aside, you have to wonder at the mentality of Sainsbury’s board of directors. The company is suffering falling sales, and after 10 years of continuous growth they have suffered six consecutive quarterly falls in sales. They reportedly cannot compete any further with the price cutting specialists (Aldi and Lidl in particular). Yet here they are building an expensive new store within 500 metres of an M&S Foodhall, a Morrisons superstore, and a Lidl (marked by the smaller circles). They even have the resources to employ a bunch of graduates, who I saw being given the Grand Tour of the site a few months ago (though precisely what business the civil work on the other side of the road was of theirs is anyone’s guess).
But I digress. Another new feature of this development is a roundabout inside the industrial estate on Private Road No. 3 (to the lower left of the Sainsbury circle). It’s worth a special mention, given that it is just a few hundred metres away from the Colwick Test Centre.
Private Road No. 3 is a long, mainly straight, and fairly wide road which gives on to numerous industrial plots. These include BDF (Britain’s largest onshore drilling company), various recycling plants (household waste and building rubble), an aggregate supplier, several commercial vehicle repair companies, cement mixers/suppliers, two major fuel suppliers (it’s hard to miss those fuel tanks from the road), and numerous other companies operating supply and warehousing services. Oh, and the test centre, of course.
Apart from that last one, you don’t have to be a genius to realise what sort of traffic uses this road (I’ll give you a hint: 90% of it is long, heavy, and has more than six wheels) and Private Road No.3’s design – if not purposely made that way – has certainly attracted such businesses, Until Nottingham City and/or County Council stuck its oar in, that is.
BDF, Wastecycle, and all those other people who have operated large commercial vehicles out of the industrial estate for decades in order to ply their trades will no doubt be surprised to learn that they don’t need a straight road after all. Obviously, what they they really needed was a tight roundabout, about 10m across and offset from the line of the road, so that anyone using to continue along the road has to travel more than three-quarters of the way round its circumference, successively pointing at almost all points of the compass as they do. But hey! It’s Sainsbury’s, right? I guess that someone somewhere is going to be benefitting from all this, but it isn’t you or me as the motorist.
I don’t think anyone would be so stupid as to make this back entrance to the Sainsbury’s site one of the ways into its customer car park (I assume it will be for deliveries only), but I do think there are plenty of stupid people out there who shop at Sainsbury’s and who “get lost” often enough to end up trying it. And if they’re stupid enough to get in there in the first place, they will easily be stupid enough to cause further problems when they encounter the lorries they are holding up as they try to turn around.
Something else that isn’t immediately apparent (you can’t see it on the map above, but it’s there) is that to the lower right of the Sainsbury’s circle there is a cycle route which goes down to the river. As you approach the roundabout, the most obvious route (if you’re a cyclist) is anticlockwise on the roundabout – it’s about 80% shorter than doing it legally. Consider also that the major users of this cycle route are both cyclists and fishermen and you can easily see that the short route will be taken more frequently than the longer one.
Consider also that the kind of people who work at some of the places on the industrial estate. It helps if you know that they drive Audis, BMWs, and Corsas. For these people, speed limits are less than advisory, and Private Road No.3 is their own personal drag strip. I mention this simply because I’ve seen them going “the short way” already on weekend afternoons.
So there you have it. Another Council cock-up as far as overblown road works is concerned. And goodbye to another two simple routes, as they’re turned into convoluted junctions with yet more traffic lights.
One final thought. Don’t expect the “temporary” 30mph limit to go back to 40mph – especially not near the new Sainsbury’s junction. Even if it does, don’t expect it to stay there for very long after the first few serious accidents caused by dolts “getting confused” as they try to take their shopping home.
For some years now, driving in Nottingham has been a nightmare. Apart from the tram (three years and counting), we’ve had gas main replacements (still on-going), and electricity cable replacements – both running concurrently (and in the same places) as the tram works).
We’ve also had sundry extended closures and diversions for Severn Trent to play The Little Dutch Boy as it tries to stem the myriad leaks in its pipework, and for builders to install service pipes and cabling to the numerous areas of greenbelt the Council has granted planning permission to build on.
On top of all this, the Council was recently awarded a grant from the EU for supposed “improvements” to the ring road, and a further grant to do something similar in the so-called “cultural zone” around Sneinton and St Ann’s. There was a condition attached that the money had to be spent by a certain time, so the Council commenced everything almost immediately. One area currently acting as a major bottleneck is the Crown Island.
Let me stress that the work on Crown Island is absolutely and completely a part of the Council’s “ring road improvements” scheme. The roundabout is currently cut from four lanes to two, so you can imagine the queues that form even when it is relatively quiet.
So it comes as a surprise to learn today that an event at Wollaton Park – some half-assed attempt to break the world record for the number of people dressed as “superheroes” all in one place – led to traffic jams. The Council’s official response (5.20pm) via the BBC was:
Nottingham City Council has apologised to people caught up in traffic around Wollaton Park earlier as thousands descended on its Superhero Picnic.
Councillor Dave Trimble said the support “far exceeded our expectations”.
“Given the high numbers of people who have attended this free event today, we have offered advice about possible alternative routes home. We are aware that motorists were caught up earlier in queues and we’re sorry if their journeys were affected,” he said.
I’m sorry to use this sort of language, but there is only one word that comes to mind here: wanker. He and the other halfwits at the City Council have created a major, long-term traffic bottleneck at the Crown Island to add to all the other bottlenecks they have on the go at the moment. What they then did was to arrange a pathetic, childish event at Wollaton Park – less than a mile away from the roundabout in question – which they failed to organise or police properly. As a result, it was chaos. An earlier BBC report (around 4.40pm) says:
Congestion is building around Wollaton Park again, with slow traffic on A6514 Middleton Boulevard at the Crown Island and on the A52 in both directions between the QMC and Priory Islands.
Earlier there was a Superhero Picnic event at the park which caused traffic to come to a standstill nearby.
They should not be arranging such events while such major road works are in place. Even worse, this one was the equivalent of one of those house parties you hear about where some prat announces it on Facebook, and a load of gate crashers turn up. An even earlier BBC report (2pm) states:
Some families heading to Wollaton Park’s Superhero Picnic say they have been forced to turn back because of traffic chaos in the area…
[A woman attending said] “We set off from Arnold at about 10:30 and got to the Wollaton pub at 11:35, ten minutes later we turned around because the traffic wasn’t moving.
“Both children were crying because they were so fed up… we saw others walking away from the picnic too,” she said.
Motorists were going crazy (1pm):
On top of that, buses were seriously delayed due to the gridlock. At 12.30pm congestion extended along the A52, A609, and Bramcote Lane.
But the beauty of all this is that – in the same news feed – the BBC reports that:
Managers and owners of businesses near Nottingham’s Crown Island say they’ve lost tens of thousands of pounds each because ongoing roadworks have caused access problems.
Landlord, Sarah Tutin from the Crown Hotel pub, said: “We’re a small business and we’re just being wiped out. We are at rock bottom now.”
So the Council incompetently decided to arrange an event involving 10,000 visitors to Wollaton Park, just off the island.
And here’s the punch line:
Nottingham City Council said the works are by the utility companies and their on-site engineers are in regular contact with the businesses to address any concerns.
Remember that word I used earlier? This just proves it. They are also liars – the Crown Island mess is THEIR mess, THEY created it. It is THEIR project. It is part of the ring road “improvements”. They’re also cowards – they can’t blame the utility companies, who would have to get permission from the Council anyway to carry out work of this magnitude.
For what it’s worth, I got stuck in it at Dunkirk at about 4.30pm as I was driving to a lesson.
For some years, DVSA used to send out a periodical magazine called Despatch. I seem to recall that it was originally a paper magazine, then it went online as an 3-monthly e-zine with a much reduced (and ever-decreasing) content. The last time they published it was July 2013. Until I looked that up I had no idea it had been so long.
I used to enjoy reading Despatch, though I have to say that towards the end it didn’t actually have much in it, and the news was always out of date because DVSA had sent out email alerts during the previous 3 months. I’m not sure how it will turn out now, but theoretically it can be 100% up-to-date.
One thing I’m not sure DVSA has thought through properly is the comments. At the moment there are only two stories – and three comments, in which you can already sense “an edge”. Once the real gutter trash gets wind of it… well, let’s wait and see.
Aaaaand there it goes! Just 24 hours later and we have plenty more comments – most of them from instructors centred on complaining about waiting times (even though the topic they’re commenting on is actually about how DVSA wants to address that), and “unfair” examiners.
Completely rewritten in August 2015 due to further hits. Original article from 2010, and updated in 2012.
In late 2011 it was announced that there were plans to scrap tests where candidates cannot speak English. From 7 April 2014 this came into effect, and it is now no longer possible to have an interpreter on the Theory Test, nor will there be the provision of voiceovers. Tests will have to be conducted in plain English (or Welsh, or British Sign Language). Interpreters are also no longer allowed on the Practical Test.
I get quite a few hits on the search term “dsa [or dvsa] changes to interpreter” or something similar. I also get quite a few hits from people searching for information about having an interpreter with them on their driving test.
My main concern over translated tests has always been the elevated risk of cheating. I know this is a taboo subject, but like it or not those people most likely to want to use an interpreter are frequently the ones most desperate to get a driving licence – whatever it takes. Interpreters tended to come from within their own communities and many of them created lucrative businesses out of it. Unfortunately, for cultural reasons which are even more taboo, fraud and deception easily crept in.
Don’t shoot me (especially that crazy woman from Manchester). I’m just the messenger. Those linguistic options have been removed is for precisely the reasons I have given. The government spokesman said:
It will also help us to reduce the risk of fraud by stopping interpreters from indicating the correct answers to theory test questions.
You wouldn’t believe how often I get people coming to the blog on the search term “how to bribe driving examiner”. Cheating and fraud is only held in check by how much money those assisting in it are prepared to charge for it.
As I’ve mentioned in another article, I once had a Chinese girl who spoke very little English. One time she didn’t see a 30mph limit sign because – as she explained to me herself (and it took a lot of effort to get it out of her with the language problems) – when she panicked she “only saw things only in Chinese!” That’s obviously a major problem, and it would apply to anyone who didn’t speak English – and more so to those whose first language doesn’t use the Western alphabet.
How do I become an official DSA [DVSA] interpreter?
Someone found the blog on that exact term. You can’t be an official DVSA interpreter, because there’s no such thing. There never was.
I mentioned recently how I had bought a GPS tracker/logger so that I know where my car is when it is out on test.
I had a pupil fail (for the third time) recently. He’s a good driver, but he does something different (and dumb) each time, and ends up with only two or three faults… plus a serious. His serious fault on his last test was for speeding.
He was on a 30mph dual carriageway approaching a speed camera. He’d missed the speed limit sign (as it happens, one of Nottingham City Council’s recent and irritating changes) and decided that it must be 40mph because everyone else was going faster than him!
The graph above, edited out of the speed data I logged, shows the exact moment he failed. You can see how he is accelerating sharply above 30mph, with no sign of easing off as he approaches 40mph. The examiner knew the camera was there and had to use the dual controls – his speed suddenly drops to just below 30mph as she did so.
For something not much bigger than a matchbox, this logger is proving to be very useful.
