Category - ADI

Modernising Driver Training Consultation

19/07/2014

The DVSA has reported its findings and conclusions following the consultation earlier this year into modernising driver training. The details of the outcome are as follows:

The government introduced a simpler grading structure for approved driving instructors (ADIs) on 7 April 2014.

The government has also decided to:

take steps to help ADIs publish and publicise their grade

look at the options for replacing the ADI part 3 test with one that uses the same criteria and marking system as the ADI standards check

continue to look at the possibilities of introducing a vocational qualification, while making sure that concerns raised can be addressed

talk to the driver training industry about how we can best reform the trainee instructor licence

start work on an online booking service for ADI standards checks

consult separately about changing the ADI fee structure

change the law so an ADI can ask for their name to be removed from the ADI register

provide the option for an ADI to take an ADI standards check to renew a lapsed registration, after talking about the practical implications of this with the ADI national associations

not pursue the introduction of fines (called ‘civil sanctions’) that the ADI Registrar could issue to ADIs for the time being

The grading structure is obviously already implemented – apart from the information in the embedded link in the quoted text above, I wrote about it back in March.

Of those yet to be implemented, the wording of the first one is interesting. It’s being interpreted ambiguously by many of the radical rabble-rousers out there. If you look at it objectively, what the DVSA is saying is that they will “help” ADIs publish and publicise their grade. They don’t actually say that they ARE going to publish them whether ADIs like it or not, yet it is that threat – which first surfaced several years ago – and I think it is that earlier proposition which prevents many of the radicals seeing this current statement for what it is.

The second one is also interesting. Recently, some crackpot had concluded on a forum that I had declared somewhere that they had replaced the PST marking sheets. Actually, I had said nothing of the kind – what I had said was that in view of the changes to the Check Test, with it becoming the Standards Check and all, with the integration of CCL topics within that I couldn’t imagine that the Part 3 test would remain as it was. I simply pointed out that if the PST sheets changed, I would obtain copies and provide them for download. So I think this particular outcome vindicated my comments completely, though anyone with an ounce of common sense would have realised the Part 3 was going to have to change. Whether it does or not even after this is another matter – there’s a General Election next year, and all of this may end up swept into the gutter.

There’s further talk of reforming the trainee (pink) licence. Previously, the talk was of getting rid of it completely, though this has been scaled back to merely “changing” it. It’s still as far away from actually changing as it was three years ago. And as I say, there’s an election next year.

All the other stuff is fairly niche, and doesn’t really affect most instructors (well, not unless they’re fully paid-up unionistas, in which case every syllable and letter has to be nit-picked to death).

On a different note, it’s worth looking at some of the responses which are quoted verbatim in a separate document accessible from the findings link. Apart from the appalling typing, grammar, and spelling, I couldn’t believe one response to the issue of vocational qualifications. The respondent has written just short of 6,000 words in his reply! Others have used the opportunity to have a go at the DSA/DVSA. I love this one:

The current system is useless

Bless. I bet it took him all night to write that, and no doubt he had help! But it illustrates why the DVSA is sometimes reluctant to listen to “the industry” or “the associations” if this is the kind of input they’re going to get. The current system isn’t useless. It could be better, but no one knows how at the moment – after all, Mr “the current system is useless” is typical of those who propose alternatives simply by virtue of opposing the current state of affairs.

Testing Britain’s Worst Drivers: Crash Course

17/07/2014

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, Movies & TV

The show is available on catch-up on ITV Player until around 16 August 2014.

An ITV press release a couple of weeks ago alerted me to this programme, and I commented on that release at the time. Since I wrote the piece – and before the show was aired – both of the people appearing on it have contacted me. Neither was happy with my opinion about these sorts of shows and the type of people who appear in them. It’s also generated a disproportionate (and suspicious) amount of traffic to the blog. Applying make up behind the wheel

This genre of TV show has become very popular with the media in the last few years. Without exception, those appearing on past programmes have clearly been involved for reasons of self-interest – and I’m talking about the kind where appearing on TV is the objective, not the kind where they actually learn something and change their ways. You see, when someone is eating behind the wheel on the motorway, driving with no hands, texting, speeding, etc., you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to realise that this is both dangerous and wrong. However, these previous shows have glamourized the whole sordid business of driving badly by following the contestants – there is no other word to describe them – into bars and other places where they can show everyone how cool they think they are.

My initial assessment of the forthcoming programme – which I stress that I hadn’t seen at that time – was based on all of this. All I had was the press release for yet another hour of bad drivers who the TV company thought made for good TV.

In fact, I was wrong to suggest (or expect) that bad driving would be glamourized here, too. The show did not – in any way, shape, or form – suggest that the normal behaviour on the road of the two featured drivers was anything other than of an appallingly low standard. One of them – the one who wrote to me and stated that he was now a better driver than me – was an accident waiting to happen. He was speeding, shooting red lights 6 seconds after they went red (and claiming they were on amber), and so on.

A simulated (but realistic) collision with someone driving like he did under normal circumstances scared the shit out of him. The programme suggested that this had changed him, and one can only hope that it did. But I have to say that anyone who was driving as badly as this guy was prior to that experience is likely to need a little more than a scare to put things right. As I have said, it isn’t rocket science knowing the difference between right and wrong, and when someone actually denies or defends it then you have to wonder why they are even on the road to start with. And as for driving better than me… well, let’s just say that I’ve never had to make such a huge leap from such a low starting point, so I don’t think so. Let’s just hope he drives a little better than he did before.

The other driver got less screen time, but she was actually more dangerous in her original state. She was eating, texting (almost continuously if the edit is in any way representative), playing with her dog (and letting it “drive”), applying make-up, doing her hair… all the stereotypical things you constantly read about in the press when there’s nothing more important to cover. Although she might resent this comment, she had the attention span of a goldfish, and that’s where the problem was. She, too, was subjected to a simulated incident, and got a serious wake-up call as a result.

Whether the experience changes the behaviour of these two people in the long term remains to be seen. The programme didn’t attempt to suggest that this had happened, and nor could it have. I still maintain that most of what has apparently been “learnt” from the experience by the two drivers would have been available to all but the dullest examples of homo sapiens if they’d have applied some common sense in the first place, or unless they had other underlying issues – like poor attention spans. Unfortunately life doesn’t seem to work this way, and even if they do learn from it, how on earth would you roll it out to the general public?

Each crash involved the writing-off of at least one, and up to several vehicles. These crashes required vehicles kitted out with advanced remote control systems to be totalled. If you did this for the general driving public it would cost maybe £10,000-£20,000 per experiment, and with around a million test passes each year (or approaching that figure), that would add up to between £1 billion and £2 billion! It isn’t likely to be rolled out anytime soon.

The programme was actually well made and somewhat different to its predecessors. But I was right when I said that the characters involved would feature hooks and deviate somewhat from what would be classed as “normal” (in the most general sense). When these shows start featuring boring, ugly people with no trips to clubs or coverage of expensive hobbies and pastimes included, they will begin to chip away at the problem. Until then, they remain unrealistic.

As an aside to all this, the female participant in the show has been plaguing me with emails. She doesn’t come over as very bright, in my opinion, although with hindsight that might also have been apparent in the programme. After all, she did allow her dog to “drive”, amongst other things, and you don’t need to be too smart to realise how dumb that is.

Suspiciously, I received another message on the same subject and using the same pathetic tone from an IP address only 5km away from Miss Britain’s Worst Driver within the time bracket of her first two. She denied this was from anyone she knew, then admitted in passing a few days later that it was one of her friends. Basically, it was exactly as I’d suggested to start with as a result of the suspicious IP addresses – but which she had denied.

I tried to explain to her that her IP address had been routed through Hounslow, and the other one from Staines – about 5km away. I seem to have spent the last two days trying to explain to her that no one has actually said she LIVES in Hounslow, just that the email was routed through there. She cannot get her head around the fact that her email DID go through Hounslow. And the other one through Staines, which made me suspicious. I mean, to get two messages on the same subject, within minutes of each other, with the same snivelling tone, and only 5km apart as far as the logged IP address goes… you’ve got to wonder, haven’t you? She even claimed she had talked to her ISP and they’d told her “only one digit [of the IP address logged] was correct”, which is utter bollocks, since it was a BT address and that means at least three characters would have matched even if it was otherwise wrong.

You know, of all the hundreds, even thousands, of people I have taught, I have never come across anyone like this. Is it any wonder she ended up being picked as one of Britain’s Worst Drivers?

Wörld Cüp Finäl

15/07/2014

DOAADI

ADI, General, News, World

I could have killed one of my pupils yesterday. He booked a last minute lesson in the only space available in my diary – at 9pm on Sunday evening. I could have said no, but he has his test coming up. But I did lay it on thick about how I was missing the World Cup final because of him.

I got home in time for extra time, and saw Mario Götze’s brilliant goal for Germany. I’m glad Germany won – they were the best team in the tournament, and any other result would have just been unfair. But something about the BBC’s coverage rankles me.

Götze’s name is spelt with an ‘o’ with an umlaut (or diaeresis in linguistic jargon). Thomas Müller’s name also has an umlaut, as does Mesut Özil’s, André Schürrle’s, Benedikt Höwedes’s, and manager Jogi Löws’s. The, for good measure, you have Kevin Großkreutz. And yet the BBC incorrectly reports these names as Gotze, Muller, Ozil, Schurrle, Howedes, and Lows (and misses out other diacritics). The German newspaper, Die Welt, obviously uses the proper spellings.

I’ve always been better at speaking German than any other language – I can’t actually speak fluently, but I can get by whenever I go to a German-speaking country (you know, order food and beer, get a taxi to take me where they serve food and beer. That sort of thing). But it was bad enough that they tried to replace umlauts with letters at one time. I used to do business with a company called Bausch and Ströbel, and in the English-speaking world they printed their name a “Stroebel”, because in the English-speaking world people are either too stupid or too arrogant to understand the umlaut.

In a similar vein, I’ve seen Löws written as Loews, and Götze written as Goetze. And it’s bloody wrong.

I find that the same thing happens with pupils who have non-British origins. Chinese pupils especially seem to often adopt English names instead of their Chinese ones to make it easier for the Brits. I’ve got a clutch of learners at the moment from India, Latvia, Lithuania, Senegal, and so on, and I make a point of learning their names and finding out how to pronounce and spell them correctly. I will go so far as to find out if they have a shorter nickname that they use themselves sometimes, but I insist on using their correct names if they are happy with that.

So I’d expect the BBC to at least spell the names of German footballers correctly instead of just missing out critical symbols which govern the pronunciation.

It was still a great goal, though.

Become An Instructor For Free?

10/07/2014

DOAADI

ADI, News, Training

That’s what Surepass are advertising! And I wonder how long this advertisement in the Bromsgrove Advertiser stays up if the ASA gets wind of it?

I don’t have a problem with people advertising instructor training. I don’t care if its an individual or a large school, and as long as they qualify their claims, they can dangle whatever carrots they like. The reason for this is that the vast majority of instructors fail at a business level – and that’s assuming that they even make it through the three exams and qualify in the first place.

I’m uneasy about this Surepass advert for several reasons. Firstly, it is advertised under “catering – hospitality” and “retail – wholesale”, and it is described as “job type – permanent”. Being a driving instructor is none of those things. The first two are just clumsy, and the last one is completely wrong (unless Surepass are actually employing salaried instructors now). Instructors are self-employed, not employed.

We’re also back to the old “salary: £20,000 to £30,000 /year” claims. While this isn’t technically wrong, it is extremely misleading. There is no way a £30,000 salary can be guaranteed when the person earning it is selling lessons for £20 an hour, and having to provide a car and fuel. It’s possible, but you simply cannot guarantee it. £20,000 is a far more realistic claim, especially for a new instructor. However, if you look at their instructor pages they also talk of £40,000 and even £45,000 a year gross earnings! Maybe they need a lesson in the differences between turnover and income, as they seem to be getting them mixed up.

Surepass also make some very strong claims. They reckon they have a 90% pass rate for Part 3, and further claim that this is 67% higher than the industry average. They also refer to a “guaranteed income”. As I say, unless they are employing people rather than selling franchises this is a very tenuous claim (the ad actually says you will be franchised).

The advert also refers to a “guaranteed car”, though I couldn’t see a car option in any of their franchise packages, nor is one mentioned on their instructor training pages. The maximum gross earnings figure appears to increase the bigger the franchise you sign up to.

However, the biggest problem with the ad is the use of the word “free”. Every occurrence is marked with an asterisk, which means that there are conditions attached. But nowhere in the ad are these conditions explained. Indeed, when you click the “Apply Now” button, you’re informed that it costs £2,500, and there is still no explanation of the word “free”. I guess that to find out you have to actually apply, and that is surely not right.

I’ve predicted several times this year that there is likely to be a new rush to offer instructor training, and this is the sort of thing I was referring to.

So You Thought It Was Safe To Drive In Sussex…

10/07/2014

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, News

Reading a car number plate from 20 metres

This is in the Irish Independent, but it relates to a UK driver. It reports that a 79-year old man driving a Mitsubishi Shogun was involved in a crash on the A26 in East Sussex last month. When police arranged for a test (not sure if it was roadside, as he had to be cut free from the wreckage after he collided with a lorry), it emerged that he could only read a number plate from a distance of 1 metre!

I can’t even create a scaled graphic to illustrate the severity of this – the red dot arrow is about 3 metres in relation to the longer 20 metre one!

You’re supposed to be able to read a new style number plate at 20 metres (correct at the time of writing), yet this senile idiot – who hasn’t been named, though he should have been – could barely see a plate at less than a 20th of that distance. For all practical purposes, he was blind. His licence was immediately revoked – presumably under Cassie’s Law. At least now this old fool isn’t likely to kill anyone. Hopefully, he will be prosecuted, too.

I have absolutely no sympathy for these people. And still you get those comedians (usually getting old themselves) who believe that older drivers are not worthy of any kind of special testing to make sure they aren’t lying through their teeth about their fitness to drive. It’s “ageist”, they say.

Older drivers are far more likely to become liabilities on the road purely as a function of getting old. It doesn’t matter how poorly new or young drivers behave – it’s a totally separate issue. Nor does it matter how many centuries the decrepit older driver has gone without having an accident. The simple fact is that as we age, we tend towards biological malfunction and eventual collapse (i.e. death). Once you’re over 70, you’re a darn sight closer to total collapse than you are of winning Wimbledon.

Unfortunately, the brain also begins to slide as you get older, and it would appear than this prevents some elderly drivers recognising their weaknesses. Of course, most just knowingly lie in order to keep their licence.

New ITV Show – Testing Britain’s Worst Drivers: Crash Course

04/07/2014

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, Movies & TV

Show reviewed here.

A new series (well, a single show) begins next week. Not much information in the press release, but it appears to feature two typical berks (note: that’s a general comment – I don’t know either of them) who couldn’t get on Big Brother (note: that’s an opinion built up after watching many similar shows), so went for this instead. It’s an hour long, so be prepared for the usual pointless filler material. Oh, and don’t be surprised if at least one of the “contestants” turn out to be more than two standard deviations away from the mean when it comes to being “normal” (note: that’s a further opinion built up from watching similar shows – there is going to have to be a hook of some sort).

Will the shock of what they experience help Jason & Laura change their ways for good?

No. They drive like that because they want to, yet are too stupid or arrogant to do anything about it.

I’ve had an email from one of the contestants who believes his driving is probably now better than mine as a result of taking part in this show. Mmm. I’ll wait until I see it next week before I comment on that – although I’ve never been bad enough to need to appear on a show like this in the first place, so he will have had to have made up a lot of ground compared to me.

However, as I said in my reply:

Don’t take it to heart.

I guess you can’t say too much prior to transmission, but why on earth would you want to put yourself in front of millions of viewers like that, rather than simply book a few refresher lessons with a local instructor if you feel you had something to learn?

These shows don’t choose boring, “normal” people. They choose extroverts – often with some sort of hook – who are selling themselves (or their hook). And such programmes do a major disservice to the industry that I work in. My comments were not personal, just general.

It does make you wonder, though. If you know you are a bad driver and claim you’re not proud of it, why go on TV in front of millions of people to show it off? Why not just take some lessons to fix the problem? Being crap on the roads is not a badge of honour, except among real lowlifes.

I mean, if you enter yourself for something like this, then you KNOW you have a problem. I guess that fixing it quietly just doesn’t get the same sort of publicity, does it?

The other contestant has written to me now. Apparently she is an actress (I told you there’d be hooks), and did the show for “all sorts of personal reasons”.

As I pointed out, my job is to try and teach young people enough about driving so that they don’t end up killing themselves (or other people). The TV companies are making that harder and harder by glamourizing bad driving on these shows. The average chav male sees it as a chance to show how hard he is. As for the chav girls… well, it gives them a chance to go on TV in their best clobber, if previous shows in this genre are anything to go by.

One person’s 15 minutes of fame is enough to encourage thousands of impressionable young people to seek the same publicity.

ASA Ruling Against Cycling Scotland Reversed

04/07/2014

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, Cyclists, News

Back in January, I reported on an ASA ruling against Cycling Scotland. It concerned a promotional ad about giving cyclists room on the roads, and someone (five people, in fact) had complained that it was irresponsible because the rider in question wasn’t wearing a helmet and was effectively blocking the road.

I ought to point out that my only beef with cyclists is how they get in the way, and I’m increasingly of the opinion that the vast majority are stupid and do it on purpose, while the rest of them are simply stupid. Personally, I don’t give two hoots about the content of these kinds of ads beyond the fact that cycling on roads shouldn’t be encouraged any further because it’s too dangerous for everyone concerned – cyclist and motorist – and there are too many cyclists venturing out on to busy roads as it is.

As I was writing this, I learned that a woman had been killed cycling in Nottingham after being in collision with a truck.

Anyway, actually getting to view the Cycling Scotland video isn’t as straightforward as you’d expect, though I’m pretty sure I could view it earlier this year. Oh yes, it’s on YouTube, but certainly when I follow the link I get the message shown here that I’m not allowed to view it in my country! Strange, when you consider that it’s actually been posted by Cycling Scotland (or the agency acting on their behalf), and Scotland isn’t independent just yet. Clearly, someone somewhere has ideas well above their station. However, as I said in the earlier article, Cycling Scotland was appealing against the original ASA ruling. I also said that it was clear that politics was involved, and this ban on anyone in England seeing the ad is precisely the type of thing I meant.

I also predicted that ASA would kowtow to Cycling Scotland, and so it has transpired in this new ruling. The original ASA page is no longer online – which is, in itself, highly suspect, as it should have been left so that the history involved was transparent.

As a result of these shady goings on, I have no doubt that there are some out there who would happily attempt to sue me if I posted the full video on the blog. However, my legal adviser has indicated that a snippet of the video is completely acceptable, so here’s the offending part.

My first observation was that cyclists round my way definitely don’t look like that! Most would look more at home swinging through the trees instead of gracing a catwalk. But I digress. The woman riding the bike isn’t wearing a helmet and – more importantly – she is riding right in the middle of the road. The ASA originally agreed this was irresponsible advertising when they ruled against it back in January, and I guess this is one reason why they have removed that original ruling so that no one can compare it side-by-side with the new 180-degree one (i.e. one that is the exact opposite of the former). Even so, they say:

We acknowledged Cycling Scotland’s explanation regarding why the cyclist featured in the final scene of the ad was placed in the primary position and that this was an appropriate position to depict the cyclist in given the specific road conditions.

I see. And young children will be fully aware of this and not think it’s OK to ride in the middle of the road. Nice one, ASA.

But this comment from Cycling Scotland really made me laugh:

Cycling Scotland further commented that cycling had a high benefit:disbenefit ratio, even when factoring in injuries and referred to the national cycling charity (CTC) report.

I would counter that this statement has a high stupid:disstupid ratio, even when factoring in the obvious politics involved. The Highway Code says:

66

You should:

be considerate of other road users…

Riding in the middle of the road, blocking traffic, putting yourself in danger, and forcing others into danger as they overtake wide (especially on country lanes, as depicted here) has been “overlooked” by the ASA. I wonder how much pressure was put on them to do so?

And So The Tram IS Going To Be Late

27/06/2014

DOAADI

ADI, News, Transport

I told you. I said back in January that they wouldn’t get the tram done in time for Christmas, but they kept saying they would.

Well, I just saw that infamous tram mouthpiece, Cllr Jane Urquhart, on BBC News admitting it wouldn’t be finished until early next year. She’s “disappointed” that it won’t be ready for Christmas, but “pleased” that the delay is “only slight”.

The thing is, the contractors haven’t been working nights or weekends for 95% of the time the disruption has been in place. However, I noticed that over the last few weeks this is no longer the case. It’s obvious that they were behind – from the various reported delays that have added months to the completion dates, to the amount of work that had obviously still got to be done. After all, it’s hard to keep defending dozens of kilometres of scorched earth with “it’ll be ready by Christmas” when the scorched earth in question still has deep holes with reinforced sides for sewer and drainage work, most of which have been in the exact same state for at least the last six months.

Being a tram worker is a real cushy number, as well. From what I’ve seen it seems to involve standing around all day texting on your phone and eating bacon sandwiches. Of course, the period I call “a day” has – until recently – only involved the time between 10am and 3pm Monday to Friday.

The tram is a waste of money, and all the people involved with it are not the best examples of efficient workers.

All of the above is “alleged”, of course. The people in question might instead be wonderful individuals who will get the tram finished on time, who work nights and weekends and have done since the work started, who don’t spend all day eating and texting, and so on. This is just for balance, of course.

Cost Of Theory Test To Fall By 25%

23/06/2014

DOAADI

ADI, Driving Tests, DVSA, News, Transport

They put this out for consultation a few months ago. Amongst various things, they were asking for opinions about cutting the price of the Theory Test, which currently costs a mere £31 (well, a bit more if you’re stupid and pay for it via a scam site).

In my response, I made it clear that as far I was concerned the current price was fine as it was. Unfortunately, someone somewhere is after votes for next year’s General Election and dropping the price is the chestnut they were going to roast come hell or high water. The “consultation” was just a pointless exercise to show that they “listen” to the public.

As you can see in the DVSA email alert I linked to above:

The cost of the driving theory test will be cut by 25%, saving learner drivers over £100 million over the next 9 years.

Let’s just set the record straight here. That “£100 million over the next 9 years” is going to be split between around 13 million tests. It isn’t going to save ANY learner more than £8 for each time they attempt the test. That doesn’t look anywhere near as vote worthy, does it? A mere £8 versus £100 million. It’s also going to be phased, with £6 coming off this October, and another £2 next year.

And don’t even get me started on how it doesn’t save anyone anything if they never had to pay the higher fee in the first place. That’s like saying that when I go out and buy a pocket calculator for £5, I am saving over £80 because of how much they used to cost when they first came out. I’m not saving anything.

The real point is that the theory test lasts about 90 minutes, which breaks down to around £21 per hour. Allowing for building rent, systems maintenance, staff salaries (at least two staff), and so on, it is hard to see how the test can possibly be maintained for even £21 an hour, let alone £15 instead. I know enough about outsourcing to understand the true costs involved, and someone somewhere is ultimately losing money on this – or they will if the market shifts unpredictably in the medium term future.

Alastair Peoples can go on forever about having “secured” a lower price for the outsourcing contract (from which one must conclude that Pearson VUE has lost the contract, or else what the hell were they charging for up until now?) It is Stephen Hammond – LibCon Transport Minister – on a vote hunt which is at the root:

We want to keep costs down for all motorists – that’s why we have frozen fuel duty – and by reducing the cost of the theory test we will save aspiring motorists around £9 million annually.

As I say, it’s total bollocks. No one is saving “£9 million annually”. Each learner will save a mere £6 (going up to £8 in 18 months’ time) each time they take a test – and even then, if they turn 17 after the price falls, they have saved NOTHING. The only positive thing is that someone somewhere else is going to have to squander £9 million less than they have been doing previously.