Category - ADI

New Standards Check Grading Structure

The DSA (soon to be known as the DVSA) has sent out an email announcing that from 7 April 2014, the date from which the new Standards Check will replace the original Check Test, a new grading structure will be in place for ADIs.

The current scoring system has grade 4 (satisfactory), grade 5 (good), and grade 6 (excellent). Grades 1-3 are below standard or “fails”. The new system will simply have three grades: grade A (good), grade B (satisfactory), and Fail.

In all the years I have been doing this job I honestly can’t remember having been asked once what my grade is. Even when the topic has arisen later on during lessons, no one has shown any real interest in the grades. The only person who DOES have in interest is me – in the early days I wanted to improve, and in the present I want to maintain my standards. My grade was a good way of monitoring that.

I don’t have any issues with the new grading system from a practical perspective. It won’t alter the way I do my job, or affect my earnings, and unless I suddenly start being a crap instructor the chances are I’ll just end up with an A (even a B wouldn’t matter, except to my ego). Politically, though, the change is pointless. No matter what the DSA/DVSA says, parents and learners don’t give a toss about grades, and combining the original grades 5 and 6 into a single grade A hardly helps instructors “promote themselves” in any useful way. All most learners are interested in initially is passing for the least cost, then – after many have been bitten by cheapos delivering poor instruction because they’ve cut their overheads to minimise the effect of cutting their prices – a damage limitation exercise with a decent instructor charging decent prices.A monkey could do this job - and they often do!

Mind you, it remains to be seen whether or not the new Standards Check actually fails more instructors than the previous system. The DSA/DVSA’s preoccupation with “sub-standard instruction” that it never actually attacks head-on might come to something then.

Recently, I’ve picked up a handful of pupils from other instructors, and given the number of hours they’ve had in lessons – bearing in mind that they have now had one or two sessions with me, and I’ve been able to assess their capabilities – their lack of progress towards the test is shocking. They’re far more able than their progress suggests.

One pupil commented that she’d had over 50 hours and “couldn’t understand the stickers” in her school car because they “didn’t line up” the way her instructor kept saying. I’ve written about these bloody stickers before. They don’t work.

And another immediately stalled my car because she’d been taught in a diesel and her jackass of an instructor had taught her not to use gas (presumably, just to save him a few tenths of a penny in imagined fuel costs). I’ve written about that before, too. It happens a lot. How can you call yourself a driving instructor if your pupils can’t drive in any car other than yours if they manage to scrape a pass?

A monkey could do this bloody job – and unfortunately, they often do. Even worse, they sometimes manage to do it for years, putting on a brilliant show for the periodic check test which doesn’t pick this sort of nonsense up.

Will the new Standards Check get these kind of people off the Register? I doubt it – but until it does, any grading system will remain meaningless.


The story has been picked up in certain corners of the media. This article says:

Becoming a driving instructor has become a popular way for people to boost their income in recent years, and the authority, formerly known as the DSA, is concerned that standards in tuition are slipping.

Although I agree with them, that isn’t what the DSA/DVSA is saying at all. It might be thinking it – but it isn’t saying it. The article also says:

Learner drivers are urged to check that their driving instructor is fully qualified, by looking for a green DVSA certificate, which should be displayed in their car’s windscreen. A pink certificate indicates that the instructor is a trainee who is gaining experience as part of the qualification process.

I can see where they are coming from, but they could have worded it better and less ambiguously. Although I never had a pink licence myself, the “pinkie” remains a common route to becoming a fully qualified ADI. It is wrong to denigrate it without some sort of clarification.

If someone is hiding their pink badge, or if they lie about their status, then you should definitely dump them and look elsewhere. However, people who are openly using the pink licence for its intended purpose (and who are not charging full lesson prices) should not be dismissed outright as potentially suitable instructors.


How often is the Standards Check carried out?

It’s supposed to be once in any 4-year period. However, if you get a poor result (i.e. if you fail a check) then you’ll be tested again much sooner than that.

The Standards Check was only introduced in April 2014, and it is too soon to say whether or not DVSA will adhere to this 4-year time period. With the old Check Test, if you believe what some people say, they weren’t tested for 6 or 7 years or more sometimes. Yet it was supposed to be done within similar time periods.

Those Americans… Again

I get a lot of stuff from the various newsfeeds. About 90% of it is either completely irrelevant, or of non-UK origin (so not usually relevant). Of the non-UK stuff. most of it is North American, and if you break that down still further then you find that about a third is to do with banning texting while driving, a third is about politicians arguing that banning texting while driving would be “unconstitutional”, and the final third is either about surprise discoveries that texting when you’re driving is dangerous or research by Clown Colleges that claim there’s no proof that texting while you’re driving is dangerous.

I gave up reporting on these stories ages ago – initially because I couldn’t keep up, and subsequently because they’re all the same; basically a lot of crap. However, this one is such a good example of why they’re crap that I thought I’d mention it.

If you thought the UK was bad when it comes to spelling out the obvious to people who are too stupid to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, just be thankful we don’t have it as bad as the Americans do. You see, to anyone or anything with more intelligence than a small pebble, it is clear that your driving is highly likely to be seriously impaired if you try and send a text to someone while you’re behind the wheel or travelling in traffic or at speed. It’s at least as dangerous as, for example, going to sleep.

In short, texting while driving IS dangerous, and no amount of Clown College “research” or political waffle about banning it being “unconstitutional” is going to alter that.

So the link is funny in that the Americans see the need for a simulator to show people that effectively shutting your eyes while driving at 70mph in heavy traffic might be a bad thing. To be fair, you have to remember that the average American teenager can get behind the wheel no matter how incompetent they are at driving (sometimes, from as young as 14). All the same, it’s a monumental waste of money designing a machine that simply demonstrates the obvious.


Just in case you don’t believe me, take a look at this link which came in a couple of days after I wrote the stuff above. South Dakota has just passed a new law banning texting and driving. But if only it were that simple.

You see, this law has been the topic of fierce debate for several years. This year alone, the argument was between two competing bills, and centred on whether or not tickets could be issued for texting on its own, and whether cities would be allowed to pass and enforce their own laws. The stalemate was so pathetic that many cities went ahead and introduced their own bans. However, the new bill is very watered down – it is a petty offence warranting a mere $100 fine, and it cannot be enforced unless the driver was stopped for something else!

You need to read the rest of the story to understand the mess American law is in. Talk about complicated.


Then there was this one from Salt Lake City. Here, a bill only got passed by 41 votes to 28. In Utah, texting is already banned, but the law doesn’t say anything about surfing, tweeting, or watching TV footage, etc. In America, if something isn’t specifically illegal then it is absolutely legal. There are no grey areas.

As I say, the newsfeeds have many of these every day.

Another Two-wheeled Idiot Rides On Motorway

Not long ago I wrote about how an idiot cyclist had caused chaos on the M25 by riding his bicycle on there, and how that in spite of trying to give the police a lesson on the Highway Code, he had been let off with just words of caution. In fact, it would appear that he was one of those people who is a few olives short of a pizza – but not enough to warrant being locked up for his own safety. Incredibly, the severest warning was apparently issued to motorists that they should watch out for such people (see the following paragraph for an update to this).

Well, another recent story tells how a cyclist was stopped on the M3. He claimed he was following his satnav instructions. It appears that both he, and the other idiot from the earlier story, were given £50 on-the-spot fines. The previous story didn’t mention that.

The problem is that both of them are complete imbeciles, and should have been prosecuted further. Neither story makes clear whether the two men had driving licences or not, though if they did then they KNEW the rules regarding cycling on motorways. If they DID have driving licences, then both should have been endorsed with points and a much larger fine. Both should have been named and shamed.

The police are taking too soft a line with cyclists, who are a growing menace on the roads. Jeez, you can’t even get away from the prats on motorways now.

Pedestrian Splasher Gets Banned, Accuser Outraged

The Daily Mail reports that Samuel Lees, 22, has been effectively banned from driving and fined £500 for splashing pedestrians in his car earlier this year. The mother who, with her children, he splashed is quoted:

I am very, very shocked by the punishment he has been given.

I don’t think that is fair at all. I think they must have wanted to make an example of him. But I think a slap on the wrist would have been sufficient.

Perhaps he could have gone on a driver awareness course, but what he has got from the court is really quite harsh. I would not wish that fine on anybody.

Whoa. Hold on a minute, here. Debbie Pugh – a “company director” – wasn’t quite so forgiving back in January. When the Daily Mail interviewed her at the time, she said:

The water went up over my shoulders, totally drenching me and the children – it was dirty, cold and it was disgusting. What he did was absolutely on purpose, there’s no doubt about it at all.

The driver could have avoided the puddle by going around it but he chose to speed through it and soak us all. I was fuming at the time.

My boy was in tears afterwards. The children were so wet I thought they might have to wear their PE kits when they arrived at school.

I saw the police were behind him when it happened but I did not initially realise they had stopped him.

When I came back from the school at about 9am there were blue lights flashing and they had pulled a car over and I realised it was him. At the time I was so angry – I am glad the police took action – people can’t go around driving like that.

You see, Ms Pugh, you got your wish. He no longer can go around driving like that. And this is one good reason why people like you shouldn’t be interviewed by newspapers and your opinions publicised. Your indignation could easily have influenced the outcome of the court’s decision, whereas your complete change of tune wouldn’t. Once upon a time, your ambivalent attitude might easily have resulted in someone innocent being executed. In this modern setting, Lees can no longer drive and may lose his job as a result.

Now, I am not commenting on the severity of the punishment. Lees deserves to be punished, and I don’t believe all his claims of innocence for one second. But again we have the problem of consistency in British Law. As the more recent report mentions, back in 2009 a woman, Kerry Callard, posted a Facebook video of herself splashing some kids at a bus stop. She can be heard squealing with glee as she does so. But police only “had a word with her”. Then, several years before that a guy from Somerset was fined £150 and given three points on his licence for wetting the trouser bottoms of a workman as he drove through a puddle at 10mph.

The offence of splashing pedestrian – certainly, the prosecution of it – is quite rare. But the few extant cases clearly show blatant sexual discrimination on the part of the authorities. Callard is by far the worst offender in this small sample – even videoing herself committing the crime on purpose – yet she got off completely. Someone who was taking genuine care through a puddle got points. Lees is somewhere in between those two – and got six points plus a £500 fine. As a new driver, six points is equal to a ban.

As I said recently, the Law is an ass.

Note that I have written about splashing pedestrians before.

Boy Racer Jailed For Killing Teenagers

Samuel Etherington, 20, has been jailed for 9 years, banned from driving for 7 years, and ordered to take an extended test when he is allowed to drive again. Although the report doesn’t make it clear, it seems that the driving ban will run concurrently with the prison sentence, meaning that when Etherington is released – probably in around 5 years time – he will only have to wait 2 years before getting his Provisional Licence back. If he doesn’t get parole immediately he may come straight out and be able to drive.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: UK Law is a complete ass sometimes.

Etherington was driving a modified Honda Civic (which are fast to begin with), with lowered suspension and loud exhaust. He had been taking ketamine (often referred to as “horse tranquiliser”) and mephedrone (an amphetamine), both of which are illegal. According to the Mirror article he revved his engine as he drove past Olivia Lewry and Jasmine Allsop. The two girls “shouted abuse” at him, and he turned around and drove at them at high speed. He hit them on the wrong side of the road, and both were killed.

What makes the story even more frightening is that the two girls knew Etherington and had actually arranged for him to pick them up from the party they had attended. Etherington’s car had a black box fitted and it showed that he accelerated to 71mph in a 30mph zone, striking the girls at approximately 65mph.

The BBC’s version of the story adds a few more astonishing details. It seems he lied about his speed, claiming he was driving at about 30mph. The black box in his car, which provided the real speed he was travelling at, was fitted because he had previously been banned from driving (after forcing a police officer to jump out of the way to avoid being hit, and failing to stop), and he couldn’t afford the insurance otherwise. The mug shot of Etherington shows him to be the archetypal pimply little scumbag you’d expect. Heaven only knows how he managed to get away with only 9 years instead of the maximum 14 given his record and the nature of this case.

But more chilling is the overlooked underworld today’s young people inhabit. All sentimental issues aside, the two girls knew Etherington and quite possibly had rode in his car before with him behaving the way people who drive modified pratmobiles usually behave. He was a drug user, a liar, and had a criminal record.

But the really, really scary part is that he isn’t unusual, and nor were the girls.

Road Rage Incident In Manchester

This story reports how a man on a mobility scooter was out with his dogs in Manchester when he was almost knocked off by a driving school car, and then allegedly beaten up when he remonstrated. The “beating” apparently involved being pushed to the floor and having his head stamped on. The “instructor” – in a silver Astra – then drove off.

I must say that the photo in the article doesn’t show the kind of wounds you’d normally associate with having your head stamped on.

Police say they are investigating, and that a counter claim of racial assault has been made. It makes you wonder what actually happened. Indeed, you also wonder if it was actually an instructor or just someone driving an instructor’s car.

The (Second) Best Of The Best

I had to smile when I saw this come through on the newsfeeds. It reports that a driving instructor in Ilkeston “narrowly missed out” on being voted the country’s top driving instructor. The article reports:

His pupils voted en masse to put him forward for the Golden L awards, a national competition to find the UK’s top driving tutor…

It also adds:

Andy… says he is thrilled to have beaten 42,000 other instructors to be named second best in the country ‘so early on in his independent career.’

I’ve got news for you, Andy. You didn’t “beat” 42,000 other instructors. You beat all except one of the handful who were put forward by their pupils. I very much doubt that the pupils would have been aware of the award in the first place unless it was… ahem… brought to their attention. More than 99% of the other 42,000 instructors out there didn’t get entered – indeed, they were probably like me and didn’t even know about the competition, and wouldn’t have cared if they did.

Having said that, good luck to you and well done. But be careful not to let it go to your head. When I worked in the rat race, I once got an award I found embarrassing (and didn’t want) for showing “exemplary customer obsession”. In the end, it was precisely the same “customer obsession” that cost me my job.

Beeston Test Centre Has High Pass Rate

This story certainly goes against the grain of comments I’ve made in the past. While the old Chalfont Drive test centre was operating, I made a point of the fact that the pass rates both there and at Colwick were about the same – with Colwick being very slightly higher (about 0.2% higher when I commented in 2011).

That has all changed. The Nottingham Evening Post reports that Colwick currently has a pass rate around 46.4%, whereas Beeston’s is a whopping 55.1%. Clifton has a much lower rate of 36.3%.

It makes it difficult for me to continue to argue that if someone is ready for their test then it doesn’t matter where they take it. Having said that, I do more than 90% of my tests at Colwick and my overall pass rate last year was well over 60%. I’ve only ever had two tests at Clifton, with one pass and one (recent) fail – the fail was for a very specific and correct reason. All my tests except one this year have been at Colwick, and my overall pass rate at the moment is 50%.

I still maintain that if someone is ready for their test then it doesn’t matter where they take it. However, there is now no way of avoiding the argument that someone who is less test-ready than someone else would stand a better chance of passing at Beeston, and a greater chance of failing at Clifton. Bugger.

In the article, a local instructor suggests that the extensive tram works in that area means that test candidates spend more time stopped or driving slowly, and this gives them more time to think and plan ahead. I’d agree with that. Mind you, whenever I travel over that side, the variable road layouts (they change from one day to the next without warning) have always struck me as a major risk factor. But in my experience of Beeston tests (I had a run of them last year), examiners avoid the Nottingham side somewhat and direct tests away from the road works. Comments by a typical learner are worrying:

The higher pass rate does make me more hopeful on what will be my first time.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens when the tram works finally end and tests can be conducted on more routes on the Beeston side.

Dashboard Cameras And Driving Tests

A few weeks ago I wrote an article about the irresponsible advice being given to candidates (and likely to be taken up by any ADI who is a sandwich short of a picnic) to covertly record their driving tests. For anyone who has trouble with big words, in this context “covertly” means doing things in secret or without the knowledge of others.

Most Test Centres have a clearly placed notice warning that recording of driving tests is not allowed. If recording is found to be taking place, there will be an initial request to switch it off. If this is refused, or if suspicions are still aroused, then the test will be terminated and the candidate will lose their fee.Dashcam on windscreen

For the record, the DSA is not impressed that they were misrepresented in Fleet News as a direct result of Policewitness.com’s blatant attempts to sell more of its dashcams by urging people to behave dishonestly, and the suggestion that tests are completed according to some sort of agenda. The DSA has also pointed out that they do not allow recording of tests because a single (or even dual) camera cannot provide an accurate record of what was happening all around. They point out that the most common cause of test failure is poor observations, and that a single, forward-pointing camera (or even a dual, rear-pointing one) could not pick this up anymore than it could pick up what was happening either side of the vehicle. They also point out that they have no problem with cameras being fitted – they provide useful training opportunities for pupils on lessons – but they must be switched off during tests.

A normal human being would have no trouble accepting this. But of course, not all ADIs are normal people, and many believe that just because they have a spanking new cheapo camera off eBay then they should be allowed to use it on tests. I recently heard several comments about how the DSA shouldn’t be worried “unless it has something to hide”. This is precisely why cameras must not be allowed – the people saying this kind of thing already believe the DSA does have something to hide, and they’re itching to take issue and show how clever they are.

An example. Last week I had someone fail his test. On his lessons he had already shown a tendency to react to a red light above all else – even if the directional lights applying to him were on green (he had done it three times over two months of lessons). Well, he only got a couple of faults on his test, but one of them was a serious for response to traffic lights. When I questioned the examiner (ours are very helpful), it turned out he stopped at a notorious set of directional lights which were on green for the direction he was heading.

On the way home, he said “I knew you would make an issue out of that, but it definitely wasn’t what you think. I just stopped for a bit too long and she said it was too long”. However, at the risk of disagreeing with him (and annoying him – he has a short fuse in this respect) I pointed out that on the route he had taken there was no scenario where the lights for him would be on red as he rounded the corner, and therefore there would normally be no one stopped at the lights, which meant that there would be no reason for him to stop. By the time I dropped him off, he had partly confessed that he might have momentarily hit the brakes for the wrong red light.

But better still, we had a lesson recently and I took him along the same route. I knew what he had really done on that test, and stood my ground each time he tried to argue around it (it’s amazing how many different and completely unrelated excuses he can come up with for a single mistake). As we came round the corner – our lights on green arrow, but the right-turn ones on red – he slammed on his brakes to stop. I told him in no uncertain terms that that was almost certainly what he’d done on his test. And just to put the icing on the cake, we ran the same route two more times – the first of these he slammed the brakes on again, just as hard, and the second time he went for them and slowed down dramatically before realising. He has a deeply ingrained habit – the result of being self-taught – which he has almost no conscious control over. But during the after-test drive home it was the examiner’s fault…

My point is that if I was one of those dimwits who sees themselves as being at odds with the DSA over every possible aspect of driving, I could really have taken issue over the test fail based on what he told me. But DSA examiners are so reliable that I do not have to assume that every fail is some sort of scheme on their part, or that I need a camera to protect myself. I don’t.


As of September 2014 there are rumours that the DVSA has reviewed its stance on cameras (though NOT to allow tests to be recorded). I haven’t seen anything official and will hold off commenting until I do.


I have written an update as the DVSA has now amended its policy. You still cannot record tests, although insurance cameras are allowed.

Learner On Lesson Gets Speeding Ticket

This came in on the newsfeeds, and it reports that a learner driver, Stacie Ralphes, was on a driving lesson with a driving instructor when she was clocked at 36mph in a 30mph zone and subsequently received a speeding ticket. She was given the option of points or a speed awareness course and took the latter.

The hyenas don’t appear to have got wind of it yet, so the fact that she was on a lesson with an AA instructor hasn’t been given the usual going over. There’s time, though.

I always explain to my pupils that if we were to get a speeding ticket, it would be the driver who gets the points. The instructor – me – could get in trouble for letting it happen (often referred to as “aiding and abetting”) if it could be shown he was negligent or in some way contributory to the act, but the driver gets the points. The article doesn’t make clear the actual events, since the instructor’s version is not presented.

I have never had any pupil flashed for speeding. But I would be liar – and so would any other instructor – if I claimed that none of my pupils had ever exceeded the limit. They sometimes catch you out and you have to regain control very quickly. If you were in the wrong place at the wrong time… well, it could happen to anyone. Indeed, someone recently pointed out that one of their pupils had passed their driving test – even though at one point they reached 35mph in a 30mph zone, but corrected it. One of my own pupils passed a few years ago, and the examiner commented that he had been exceeding the limit a little, but he’d let it go because it was a good drive otherwise.

As I say, the wrong place at the wrong time and everything could be so different.

In this particular case, you’d think that the police would have shown some discretion because one thing you can safely say is that the instructor wasn’t allowing it on purpose. It is quite possible – likely, even – that the instructor dealt with the problem but just too late to avoid the speed camera logging the speed. I’m only speculating, but then so are those who would tar both the instructor in question and the AA with the same brush without knowing the facts themselves.

As it is, the AA has offered to pay for the speed awareness course (and so they should).

Edit: The hyenas have got a hold of it now. As you’d expect – and in the absence of any specific details other than Stacie Ralphes’ version – there are outraged demands for the instructor concerned to be hung, drawn, and quartered. Whether or not that happens is none of the business of the “experts” making the demands.

There is a saying: there but for the Grace of God, go I. Some of these comedians should look that up to see what it means.