Category - ADI

Why 11-Year Olds SHOULDN’T Be Taught To Drive

One from the newsfeeds drags the old chestnut about teaching 11-year olds to drive. I’ve written about this before, most recently last year, but it goes back further.

Let’s not try and disguise the fact that the main beneficiaries are the people who provide these lessons – not those who take them. A normal, quality learner lesson costs about £23-£25, but these things are charged at £60 an hour. There is absolutely no way the vast majority of those taking them are going to get up to test standard at that price, and the “lessons” amount to little more than a ride round a go-kart track in a real car. Indeed, I recently took on a pupil who had had one of these sessions, and in absolute honesty you couldn’t tell. She was no different to someone who’d sat in the car on a driveway or in a car park with mum or dad and made the car go forward a bit.

In one of my earlier articles on this subject I quoted one 11-year old driving a car for the first time as saying:

How cool is this?

That was in 2012. He will be 13 now, and still has at least four years to go before he can drive legally. Unless mummy and daddy have kept up the lessons (and they’ll have forked out up to £1,500 by now even at one lesson a month, assuming he hasn’t got bored of driving round the same circuit) he will have done nothing.

This current story is almost an exact parallel:

[name removed] is 11 and was very excited at the prospect of driving a car for the first time.

I’ll bet he was. And I’ll also bet that it will come as a major disappointment when he realises that unless mummy and daddy have very deep pockets, it will also be the last time for at least the next six years. Well, legally, anyway.

Then there is this comment:

Given [name removed] is just 5ft he was given three cushions to make sure he was high enough to see over the steering wheel and reach the all important pedals.

Or, in other words, he is too small to drive safely in the first place. And even then, going by the photo, he is barely at eye-level with the steering wheel.

And the most telling comment:

As the hour lesson goes on his confidence is clearly building and we are getting quicker.

Oh dear. Getting “quicker”. And there we have the common denominators in the majority of accidents involving new drivers – over-confident and too fast for their ability.

These courses do absolutely nothing to help children’s’ Immature and juvenile minds, and they simply cannot handle adult activities like driving. Nor should they be expected to, and they definitely shouldn’t be encouraged to try.

Trams, Idiots, And Automobiles

People may not have noticed, but I am not a tram person. This is especially true when I am anywhere near the utter chaos that is the result of the current tram extension work. Clifton is a nightmare no matter where you go. But it is made worse by people like this:Idiot pared at traffic lights in Clifton - reg. no. SJI 5262

This is Rivergreen in Clifton, where it joins Southchurch Drive near to the swimming baths, The tram is going down Southchurch, and at the moment it is down to a single lane controlled by three-way lights. Buses turn into Rivergreen, which is a narrow road made worse by parking at the best of times. However, they have had problems with morons like this (registration number SJI 5262) parking outside the Methodist Church. Recently there have been “no parking” cones put there, but this being Clifton someone has stolen them (they might even be in the boot of this prat’s car).

I came down here this morning with a pupil. What you can’t see is that there are two more cars parked just behind us – spaced apart slightly. The sign on the left says “wait here”, and the lights have a sensor on the top to detect when traffic approaches. There was no way we could get to the stop line without blocking the road, and even where I stopped the pupil we were still actually in the way, especially if a bus had turned in. Shortly after this, several cars did turn in, and I had to edge us forward to give them space. This imbecile was about two car lengths from the stop line.

I often wonder why it is that people with private plates behave like the biggest tossers. This particular one could have parked a few metres down the road, but that would have been too simple. It was probably some old fart who thought they had some sort of special rights. Anyone with any sense – and believe me, there are quite a few people who park here who obviously have no sense at all – would have deliberately kept away from the lights.

As it is, you can’t help but think that all Methodists are idiots. They certainly seem to be in Clifton.

Nottingham Gridlocked 18/06/2014

I had to cancel a lesson tonight because of the traffic. As far as I can tell, the tram road works, the gas road works, the electricity road works, road works due to “improvements” to the various junctions along the ring road, numerous road works due to the building of proto-slum dwellings, road works due to resurfacing work, road works due to sewer repairs, etc. – all of which cannot cope with the volumes of traffic likely to occur outside the range 1am until 4am at the best of times – there had been an incident on the M1 which had apparently resulted in M1 traffic using the above road work sites as a “quick” shortcut.

Even as late as 6.30pm, there was gridlock going into Beeston towards Long Eaton from Clifton Bridge onwards. There was gridlock going north along the ring road towards Mansfield. And there was gridlock on the A52 going south towards Melton and Grantham, beginning at Clifton Bridge. In other words, it was impossible to get from one side of Nottingham to the other, no matter which way you attempted it. However, it was totally clear between the QMC and Clifton Bridge, so I’m certain Cllr Jane Urquhart will weight this in such a way that it is portrayed as a major success for the tram system.

In-Car Video Cameras (Update)

In-car cameras are in the news at the moment. Personally, I have been experimenting with them since 2009. My favoured device at the time was not designed as an in-car camera, but it worked perfectly for what I wanted to do back then. My biggest gripe with the purpose-designed cameras in the intervening period has been that the field of vision is too wide and everything is distorted. I wanted HD-quality, but that’s no good if everything looks like it’s wrapped around a fishbowl.

Things have come a long way in five years, though. At the moment I have my eyes on the Hero Go Pro. It is a professional-quality HD camera. Here’s a sample of the kind of footage it captures:The only drawback is the lack of GPS logging. Maybe that will come on a future model.

Anyway, this isn’t a run-of-the-mill dashcam. It’s intended for people who get out and about – much like the Contour unit I was using previously. It isn’t cheap, and one of the accessories – which is also not cheap – is a suction cup mount which allows you to mount the camera on boats, cars, and so on. Most of the reviews for the mount are positive, but one of them isn’t. Look at this:

A first trial of my brand new GoPro hero 3 cam ended in a huge disappointment. I used the suction cup as specified in the description. During a flight it was mounted on the wingtip of a single engined aircraft which is a flat and smooth surface. I cleaned and dried the spot where I mounted the suction cup carefully before placing it, just to make sure that the suction cup was fastened correctly as recommended. After a 20 minutes flight with a speed of 110 Mph I looked on my IPhone to set the camera in the photo mode instead of the video mode. I was very enthusiast of what I saw at the display of my IPhone. Suddenly the contact with the camera was lost and I looked at the wing and saw that I lost my camera………unfortunately above the water. 🙁 I wonder if GoPro has a solution for this as the suction cup does not meet the specification as mentioned and I was not able to see one single picture or video of my new cam.

I couldn’t stop laughing when I read it. This character had spent several hundred quid on a professional quality video camera and suction mount, and then gone and stuck it on the end of the wing of an aeroplane! Over water!

It’s a bit like buying a Ferrari and then driving it on a stock car track. Or a white silk shirt, then creosoting the fence while you’re wearing it.

Theory Test Has 90% Failure Rate

Don’t worry – it’s not in the UK. The Bangkok Post reports that the new multiple choice test introduced a few days ago is showing a greater than 90% failure rate in the first set of results from Chiang Mai.

It seems that the new multiple choice test introduced last Sunday – which requires 45 correct answers out of 50 – is similar to the one we use in the UK. The recent change has increased the number of questions from 30, and set the pass rate at the higher level of 90%.

The department has enforced tougher measures to obtain driving licences after it found that many road accidents were caused by a lack of drivers’ ability.

I wonder if Thailand’s driving instructors are blaming the authorities yet? After all, that’s what many of them do over here when one of their little darlings fails the UK theory test.

Thailand is also piloting a system it calls “E-driving”.

Instead of having an examiner sitting in the car with them, test cars will be equipped with computers and cameras to monitor drivers.

“The E-driving system provides accurate and precise results and will do away with problems in the old system, which relies on a committee to assess results,” says Department chief Asdsathai Rattanadilok Na Phuket.

I’m not 100% sure what this chap is saying – is it the old method which requires a committee decision, or the E-driving one? Who will decide now? Just one person? But he adds:

It will also bring a drop in the number of applicants passing the test, from 70% to only 30%.

Interesting.

Left-Hand Driving School

This story appeared in the Mail Online a few days ago. Someone has set up a left-hand driving school on the strength of the “revelation” that…

…more than a quarter of holidaymakers are afraid to drive abroad.

Unless their entire client base consists of authentic Chelsea tractor drivers, I’ll give it 6 months before it goes under (although it is a free course which is being funded from somewhere, so it might survive just a little longer). The article also identifies the “Top 5 Fears When Driving Abroad”:

  1. Not recognising road signs
  2. Getting lost
  3. Going around roundabouts
  4. Trying to navigate
  5. Driving on the other side of road

Errm, well actually, with the possible exception of #5 (and not even then in some cases), that’s exactly the same list most would give if asked about driving on British roads. So it’s hardly the basis for a business plan. If people are too stupid to look up the necessary details about road signs and procedures for the country they intend to visit before they go, it’s going to take a little more than a free course to sort them out.

Of course, it helps if you realise that the company behind it – SkyScanner – describes itself as follows in its “About us” section:

…a leading global travel search site, providing instant online comparisons for millions of flights, as well as car hire and hotels.

It’s not quite as altruistic as it first appears, is it? It’s not even a “school” – it’s a course (with an unspecified number of classes), which is apparently being delivered by driving instructors who have “teamed up with” (i.e. they must be getting paid) SkyScanner to deliver the “free” course. That’s a convoluted way of saying that it is a novel advertising exercise. I mean, there’s no problem with it, but you shouldn’t turn it into something it isn’t.

I can’t imagine there’d be much opportunity for practical sessions, either.

A Leading Driving School?

You don’t half see some rubbish, sometimes. This story came in on the newsfeeds, and it begins:

One of the leading driving schools in the country has embarked on an expansion plan which will see it cover all the parts of the United Kingdom.

This “leading driving school” is called County Learners Driving School, of whom I had never heard. I had never seen an advert for them, and a Google search only threw up three recent press releases with the exact same text. Their own website – if such existed – didn’t come up at all. Odd for a “leading” company, don’t you think?

If you use the domain name part of the contact email address given at the end of the press release you find what is obviously an unfinished website. Actually, that’s an overstatement – what you find is a barely started website. I has literally no content and no functionality whatsoever. It has what appears to be some sort of countdown timer, which reads:

Anticipate NaN DaysNaN HoursNaN MinutesNaN Seconds

There is no text to indicate who the website refers to.

So you have to wonder how they can call themselves a “leading driving school”. On that basis, I could call my own school “worldwide” or “international” just because I like the words. I think they mean they’re a “new” driving school, and I wonder if the ASA is aware of this misleading hype.

PoliceWitness.com – An Update

As of June 2019, this article has received a few hits. Please note that it is an old post and is not relevant any longer. DVSA allows recording of tests using dashcams now (but still not the audio). Indeed, I often use dashcam footage to show pupils where they went wrong. However, the original post is still of interest because of what was being advised at the time I wrote it. Namely, covert recording of tests at a time when DVSA (or DSA as it was) did not allow it.


Back in February I commented on a story that had come through on the newsfeeds concerning advice from PoliceWitness.com. The company sells in-car cameras, and in a story published in Fleet News, it was stated:

Learner drivers are being encouraged to film their driving tests, covertly if necessary, by PoliceWitness.com.

Earlier today, I received an email from PoliceWitness.com. The full text is as follows (with their permission):

Dear Sir,

I am writing with reference to your post on your website, diary of an adi: https://www.diaryofanadi.co.uk/?p=14855 which states that PoliceWitness.com has given irresponsible advice about filming driving tests.

I wanted to take the opportunity to clear up any confusion and thought it would be useful to update you on our recent correspondence with Alastair Peoples, the Chief Executive of the DVSA.

On your website you state “PoliceWitness is getting itself into a very muddy area, since unless an examiner gives permission such recording could be a breach of the Data Protection Act”.

When we contacted Alastair Peoples and asked about the DPA and filming of driving tests, his reply was “…You suggested that we have used the Data Protection Act as the reason why we do not allow the filming of driving tests. This is not the case. While it is true there are data protection issues associated with the recording of tests, the main reason we do not allow tests to be recorded is that a single video camera mounted in a test car could not provide an accurate record of everything that happened on test”.

We have had several subsequent letters from Mr Peoples who has recently advised, and I quote As you may appreciate, there are many issues to take into account when considering the recording of driving tests. For many years, our position has been – aside from a few very exceptional circumstances – that we did not allow the recording of live tests. This policy developed largely from our concerns that the recording of tests from inside a vehicle could have been a breach of the Data Protection Act. We were also concerned that footage from a single, internally-mounted camera could not show a true representation of events both inside and outside the vehicle. There is also the possibility that a recording could be altered to show something different from what actually happened.

We are, however, aware that times change and cars that are fitted with cameras, telematics systems and other forms of recording devices for insurance purposes are becoming more common. It is difficult to foresee how we could exclude vehicles with these technologies from

testing, neither would we wish to do so. We are committed to working with stakeholders to design a modern and relevant driver training and testing regime that delivers safe and responsible drivers and riders. It is clear that the current position on the recording of driving tests needs to be reviewed and we are currently looking into that. During that review the safety of test candidates, examiners and other road users, and the integrity of the driving test must take priority. Once we have completed our review we will publicise the outcome through the usual communication channels”

As a driving instructor (are you based in Nottingham?) I thought you might be interested to hear about the driving test review that is underway and to hear how PoliceWitness.com is supporting many DI’s who have dash cams installed, not only to protect themselves on the road but to use them as a training tool for their pupils.

I hope you have found the update from Mr Peoples useful and would be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Kind regards,

Paul
Customer Services

With a proven track record of holding bad drivers to account, we have been instrumental in changing driving standards for the better.

Our most significant step forward of late has been to secure genuine insurance reductions for those using a dash cam.

Unlike many insurers that merely use ‘x% off’ as a marketing message, we’ve gone straight to an underwriter who already recognised and understood the benefits of a dash cam during a claim.

As such we guarantee to reduce our members insurance costs. Even beating the likes of Direct Line and Aviva. An announcement will follow.

In my response, I included an email I received from DSA (now, DVSA) in February this year, which I also include in full, below (I have underlined the significant portions):

Dear [DOAADI]

Thank you for your email of 3 February about using video equipment to record a practical driving test.  I appreciate you bringing this matter to our attention. I have informed our relevant departments who will also investigate further if necessary.

We do not allow people to record driving tests as images and/or audio recorded consist of, in most cases, the personal data of the examiner. This means that the images or recordings are subject to the Data Protection Act (DPA).

The fact the act is employed means that the Approved Driving Instructor must ensure the processing of this personal data is ‘Fair’ and they satisfy certain conditions that allow processing in this way. They must take account of the privacy and wishes of the person whose being filmed, especially when an individual objects to filming. Based on this, we made the decision to prohibit the filming of tests, owing to the data protection issues involved.

It is within the examiner’s rights to stop a test if they become aware of someone filming the test without the agency’s permission. If it becomes apparent that filming equipment is active either in a test vehicle or externally, the examiner should politely ask for the equipment to be switched off. If this request is not complied with the test should be terminated.

If a test is terminated because of filming the candidate would lose their fee. If a test is filmed covertly and the examiner did not know, then all DPA laws would apply. Our position is still that we do not allow tests to be recorded because of the DPA protection implications. If a test is filmed we would not view the footage unless it is deemed to have involved criminal activity, in this instance we would send the film directly to the Police.

You can find further information here.

This is not to say that vehicles fitted with CCTV etc will be refused for test. However, the equipment must be turned off while the test occurs.

Yours sincerely

Customer Support Correspondence

Customer Operations

[old DSA email address no longer correct]

As you can see, there is a discrepancy here. Alastair Peoples says one thing, whereas the DSA part of the new DVSA says another. However, the fact remains that – at present – DVSA does not allow any form of recording to take place during tests, and I maintain that it is – at present – irresponsible to advise covert recording of driving tests.

There are a number of issues that Alastair Peoples does not seem to have considered in his comments to PoliceWitness.com. Concerning DPA, there is the fact that the majority of test candidates are under the age of 18 (and a large proportion of those are female). The Protection of Children Act (1978) was amended in 2003 to apply to anyone under the age of 18, and so the routine recording of 17-year olds will definitely raise questions – or, at the very least, put the person making such recordings in a very risky position – should the person being filmed raise any objections. I’m not saying it would definitely be in breach of the DPA and associated laws, but it is clearly sailing bloody close to the wind. Also, the inside of a tuition vehicle is not a “public place”, so as I said in that earlier article, it’s a very muddy area – and one that is best kept out of by instructors,

Furthermore – and irrespective of any possibility that recordings can be amended to show something different to what actually took place – in order for a bona fide recording to show all of the necessary information for an appeal over a test result, it would have to have been made from several simultaneous camera angles. To cover all possible situations, you would need forward- and rear-facing footage, footage from at least one camera either side of the car, and close-ups of both the examiner and the candidate. All of these channels (at least six) would have to be synchronised. Only then could you begin to address the usual “but I did check… oh no, you didn’t” claims when someone fails. And it would still need lengthy expert assessment to decipher what was going on. Mr Peoples doesn’t seem to have considered that – or how much it would cost DVSA to wade through the inevitable deluge of unfair claims that would ensue.

And yes, there is the risk of footage being edited to bolster any claim, though this is the least of any problems that might arise from allowing tests to be recorded.

You also have to remember that both VOSA and DSA have a long history of “looking into things” – and an equally long history of actually doing bugger all about any of them in the end. For Alastair Peoples to say something like this now – less than a year away from a General Election – is typical. It is likely we will have a new government this time next year, and in the meantime the existing one will be more concerned about not losing votes than it is about changing things which won’t win any. In any case, the uncertainties over the legal situation mean that changes to the Law are likely, and that means consultations. All of this is even less likely to happen inside any reasonable time frame.

I have no problem with PoliceWitness.com selling cameras for the purposes of combatting theft and fraud, but driving tests are not conducted fraudulently, give or take a few high-profile cases every few years. Advising covert recording of something which is already expressly forbidden is a bit of a contradiction in terms.


This article is getting a a fair few hits from Theory Test Pro, and an article of theirs which give 5 reasons why ADIs should use a dash cam. All of the reasons are sound – and not one of them involves recording driving tests.

As I have written before, I use a camera for training purposes – I’ve experimented with several – but recording tests is something I would never do, even if it was allowed. [EDIT 2019: I am a steaming hypocrite! I forgot I actually wrote those words until just now. Since DVSA started allowing it, I initially didn’t record tests. But then I got a camera which starts up as soon as the car is started, and I didn’t want to keep removing it, so I left it in. It’s turned out to be a Godsend in helping pupils understand what they did right/wrong on test]. There is simply no need. And there is no need for any of the many hundreds of other people who take tests daily to record theirs, either. There’s even less need for them to be egged on by someone who sells cameras on the premise that they’re being cheated out of test passes.

It must be stressed that DVSA does not object to dash cams being fitted. However, driving tests cannot be recorded [that is no longer correct in 2019, or for the last couple of years]. People seem a little confused by this, and seem to assume having the dash cam at all is a problem. It isn’t.


This article has been getting a few hits during the summer from a forum dedicated to one particular dash cam. The thread that is triggering the interest has two posts of note.

One ADI comments that he has forgotten to switch his camera off a few times on test, and that the footage makes “interesting viewing”. This is a fairly ambiguous comment – it may mean just what it says (though you can sit in on test and see exactly the same “interesting” things), or it could mean that the ADI in question disagrees with what he has seen.

However, all ambiguity is removed by another poster, who comments:

I bet they do make interesting videos! I may have to “forget” to switch mine off during test!

Regular readers will know that I often refer to the attitudes of some ADIs, and how this us-and-them approach to the DVSA doesn’t do anyone any favours. Deliberately suggesting that DVSA rules are going to be broken – and the current rule IS that no videoing of tests is allowed – is… well, you can work it out for yourself.

I’m sure some people become ADIs just to cause trouble. There is no need whatsoever for 99.9% of tests to be recorded, and the remaining 0.1% is insufficient (and insignificant enough) to justify that they should be! The DVSA is NOT routinely doing anything that warrants covert filming, and it is nauseating to keep hearing camera vendors, disgruntled pupils, and even ADIs suggest that they are.


Note this update from September 2014. DVSA will now allow insurance cameras to be fitted and running, but you still cannot record driving tests per se or any audio, nor will DVSA enter into any form of discussion about disputes arising from such insurance video footage.

My original assertion that advising people to covertly record their tests is irresponsible still stands. However, I do think DVSA has shot itself in the foot (albeit with a spud gun) over this.

I don’t think they should have changed their original stance.


Note the edits in this post. I forgot I’d written it until it started getting hits in June 2019. I have done a U-turn and record tests (but never audio). It is very useful. But note that the original purpose of the post was valid – at the time, DVSA (or DSA as it was called then) didn’t allow recording at all, and the company referred to was advising covert recording in complete opposition to that – apparently with the suggestion that test fails could be appealed.

DVSA will not entertain an appeal based on video footage for the reasons already given.

Independent Driving And Tit-For-Tat

Directions

I noticed someone comment recently that the independent driving part of the driving test is pointless and a waste of time simply because it doesn’t matter if someone fails to follow the directions accurately.

This is a rather short-sighted view. I’ve noticed time and again that in the early stages of learning, when I am giving directions, I can train pupils to use the MSM routine with no problem. The fun starts the first time I let them choose a route (maybe driving home) or if we are actually attempting a test-like independent drive with a map or road signs. Now that my voice isn’t a trigger any more, the majority of pupils immediately start missing mirror checks and signals, and some of those cases are clearly down to not having that verbal trigger. Prior to the independent driving assessment this was rarely dealt with, and it certainly wasn’t tested for.

The driving test is 40 minutes long. Until it becomes a continuously assessed year-long event (and that will be roughly around the same time that hell freezes over), it will always have limitations. Introducing the independent driving element definitely addressed one potential issue that the test previously did not.

Of course, how people choose to drive when they have passed is not the fault of the test, the examiner, the instructor, or any other third party who wouldn’t have been involved if the driver hadn’t chosen to learn to drive in the first place. It is, however, the fault of the parents – in large part.

And don’t get me started on special needs candidates who, according to some, “can’t cope” with the independent drive segment of the test. You have to wonder what these drivers will do when they pass and start driving around on their own. If they cause an accident through not driving properly, people can still die.

The simple fact is that if you go the wrong way, but do it properly, then you haven’t done anything wrong. You’re not being tested on navigation skills, you’re being tested on your ability to drive safely. However, being in the wrong lane for the turn you are going to take is NOT safe. The examiner knows this, and it’s where the faults usually come from – directly (if you cut across traffic) or indirectly (if the examiner reminds you where he wants you to go to avoid ending up on a motorway or in a canal, and you panic). Unfortunately, in real life – especially with new drivers – what someone says they were going to do and what they actually did do don’t always marry up.

Here’s an example from a lesson tonight. I had to stop a pupil from entering a tight, two-laned roundabout which she had approached too fast. Even if the roundabout had been clear, there was no way she would have kept in lane had she entered it at the speed she was doing, and there was no way of knowing what she would have done – or which exit she would have headed for in her panic – once she realised what was happening. Subsequently, there was no way whatsoever I was going to wait to find out, and I used the dual controls. After we stopped to discuss it, she insisted that she was going to brake, but that I had beaten her to it. I pointed out the following (more diplomatically):

  • if my internal panic-o-meter maxes out then I will take action
  • if I have to take action, then you were too late
  • it doesn’t matter what you say you were going to do – you didn’t do it by the time I had to
  • I am not going to risk my life, your life, other peoples lives, or my car gambling on whether or not you will react in time – or on how you will react
  • …and the examiner will view it in exactly the same way

It seems that the original comments about independent driving stem from a discussion on another forum, where someone thrice removed from an alleged situation had heard a story from the parents of a test candidate who had been failed for being in the wrong lane at a roundabout. The hearsay reports that the candidate had been asked to take the second exit on a roundabout as part of the independent drive, but he signalled and positioned as if to take the first. He had insisted to his parents that he was going to take the first exit, and the parents had contacted this thrice-removed ADI, who was also a family member. As you’d expect, the usual suspects have stacked up against the examiner, even though all of them are even further removed from being associated with any reliable facts. Several have even gone so far as to state categorically that it “shouldn’t have been a fail”. No one who is so far away from knowing the full story can possibly make such an assertion and be taken seriously.

In my own example from above, if you just say that I used the dual controls but the pupil insisted she was going to stop, it sounds like I was somehow in the wrong. It is only when you have the full facts that anything like the true situation starts to emerge. My pupil can argue all she likes, but she was going too fast and could easily have hit another vehicle, so the question over whether or not she’d have braked and given us both whiplash into the bargain becomes moot.

There is every likelihood that the failed test candidate in the forum example was acting irrationally enough for the examiner to decide not to risk it developing any further. That is quite probably why he took action, and correctly so. If nothing else, those people who are thrice removed from the events should certainly consider it instead of just trying to trash the DVSA.

Independent driving is about showing that you can drive a car safely without being prompted to use MSM with frequent directions all the time – something a learner will have to be able to do the moment they pass their test. Being tested this way is better than not being tested at all, which the old version of the test was guilty of.

Learner Driver Car-Jacks His Instructor

This story in The Mirror tells how a learner driver turned on his instructor when challenged over unpaid lesson fees.Darwin Awards

As well as being (“allegedly”) the kind of scumbag who didn’t pay for his lessons in the first place, the learner then decided that punching his instructor in the face would be a good way of managing the situation. But this new candidate for the 2014 Darwin Awards couldn’t let it go there. Because when his 56-year old instructor attempted to call the police as the halfwit tried to make off, he then decided that the best way of handling this new development would be to return and continue the attack, then steal the car.

It would have been the perfect crime if the instructor hadn’t have had the idiot’s home address, and it appears that the police arrested him quite easily as a result of that small detail. The car has not yet been traced, though it is bright red and is emblazoned with the driving school’s livery.

The 22-year old imbecile from Erdington, Birmingham, was arrested on suspicion of robbery and assault and is being questioned by police.

I can’t wait until we find out this saddo’s name. I’ll add it to this story when we do.