This story appeared in the news yesterday. It tells how a complete prat of a cyclist rode on the M25 motorway in Surrey. The idiot claims his mobile phone app told him to do it – and police apparently bought that.
The thing is, if you watch the CCTV footage, the moron broke just about every rule in the Highway Code. He rides across chevrons and solid white lines on one of the most congested roads in the world, during the rush hour. He had apparently cycled for “several miles” before being stopped. What is really frightening – apart from the fact this person is still going to be allowed to breed – are the comments of the Surrey Police:
Further tweets from the force read: “Genuine mistake I’m sure but could have stopped at bottom of slip road! Most children know not to stray onto a motorway.
“Nice chap but unaware of the rules of the road, believed it ok to ride/walk on hard shoulder, struggled to see why not…”
For “nice chap”, read “several olives short of a pizza”. You can just hear his banter now. I suspect the police didn’t do anything because it would have been like kicking a lame puppy. But the simple fact is, they SHOULD have done something. This person should not be allowed near a bicycle again, and should be on court-ordered psychiatric assessment.
Oh. I almost forgot. Someone DID get a severe “talking to” about it.
Later, Sgt Phil Dix, from the roads policing unit, said… it showed why motorists needed to be alert and vigilant and added: “You never know what you may come across.”
How stupid of us all. It was the motorists who had to avoid him who were most at blame. Can you imagine what would have happened if anyone had hit him? The Surrey Police wouldn’t be calling anyone “nice chap” then, would they?
Just for the record, for “mobile phone app” read “satnav”, because that’s all it is. If a motorist misreads their satnav they get the book thrown at them all the same.
This article was originally written in July 2011. However, there has been a run of hits on it recently, so I’ve updated it (2014).
It’s getting another run of hits (2020). It’s quite amusing looking back, because ten years after the original article, nothing has actually changed! Apart from DSA becoming DVSA.
The BBC reported back in 2011 that the government [was] to review the trainee driving instructor (pink badge) system. As of 2014, nothing has changed and everything is still up in the air, although the proposals are still current. If nothing else, the time scale involved so far should provide a vivid illustration of how long it takes for anything to happen. Personally, I’d be in favour of a revamp for the simple reason that the vast majority of PDIs never become ADIs, yet they are still allowed to teach learners if they opt for the trainee licence route.
The trainee licence is often referred to as a “pink” or “pinkie”, by virtue of the colour of the badge that is issued by the DSA (now known as DVSA). A full ADI licence gets a green badge with an octagon on it, and the trainee one is pink with a triangle. The pink badge provides a means for PDIs who have passed their Part 1 and Part 2 tests to gain experience training real pupils while preparing for the Part 3 test of instructional ability.
The argument that practice makes perfect is quite logical on paper. However, there is no evidence that PDIs who have taken the pink route have higher pass rates at Part 3 than those who didn’t. More on that later.
A PDI who wants to use the pink route has to apply to DVSA. The pink licence is valid for 6 months and can only be extended at the DVSA’s discretion. The full conditions of the trainee licence are given here. Here’s part of the text:
3. Rules for using your trainee licence
You must:
be a ‘fit and proper’ person
get the required amount of supervision or extra training while your licence is still valid
make sure your advertising doesn’t make it seem like you’re a fully qualified instructor
Displaying your licence
You must display your trainee licence on the nearside edge of the front windscreen of your car while you give driving lessons.
Where you work
Your trainee licence shows the name and address of your training establishment. You can only give instruction from there, so you can’t work independently, eg by setting up your own school.
Changing your driving school
You must apply for a new trainee licence if you leave a driving school and join a new one. There’s no fee for doing this.
The Driving Standards Agency (DSA [now DVSA]) will send you a new licence showing the details of your new school. You should send your old licence to DSA as soon as you get the new one.
You can still give driving lessons whole you wait for your new one
When trainee licences can be taken away
The ADI registrar can take your trainee licence away before it runs out if:
you break any of the rules for having a trainee licence
the licence was issued by mistake or gained by fraud
you fail 3 attempts at the ADI part 3 test
Not using your trainee licence
You should return your trainee licence to DSA [now DVSA] if you aren’t using it, eg because of a long period of illness.
You won’t get a refund, but DSA [now DVSA] will know that you haven’t had full use of the licence. This will be a factor in deciding whether to give you another licence in future.
There is more, but this is the main gist. There is no mention of how much a trainee can charge because lesson prices are not part of DVSA’s remit. Interestingly, when The AA took over BSM they made it clear that they were going to introduce differential pricing for PDIs. It is stated in black and white in the news release to BSM franchisees released in February 2011. My understanding is that BSM PDIs now charge £15 per hour for lessons (the actual price may be region dependent), although it is hard to find any of this in writing.
The overall trainee licence conditions are very restrictive… if they’re adhered to. Many PDIs circumvent the issue of not advertising themselves as ADIs by not mentioning their status at all. It’s advertising by implication, since if you don’t explicitly state that you are a trainee, people will simply assume that you are an ADI (no one has ever asked me). These same PDIs advertise freely, sometimes with websites furnished by their trainers, and carefully avoiding any mention that they are only trainees. Others advertise on their own, knowing full well that unless someone reports them, the DSA (DVSA) is unlikely to find out and take their badge away. Many don’t display their badge openly – it will be behind the tax disc or sun visor, or in the glove box (this is sometimes given as specific advice by certain training schools). And in all honesty, the only contact most PDIs have with any “supervisor” is in the classroom. There is virtually no “supervision” while they hold the pink licence or during their in-car lessons. The PDI’s objective is simply to earn money, and their learners are almost always completely unaware of all this.
Both PDIs and training companies are implicated in these shenanigans. It’s a carefully crafted game of chess, designed to bend the rules of the pink licence as far as they will go without actually breaking them, though as I’ve said some people do break them knowing that they’re unlikely to get caught.
PDIs often ask for advice on forums about where to lease cars from, and querying what expenses are tax deductible. Given that it costs upwards of £70 a week to lease a tuition vehicle – plus the fact it takes time to build up a pupil base even for a qualified ADI – a PDI with household bills to pay will be looking way beyond just gaining experience for their Part 3 test. This perhaps explains why the pink route doesn’t seem to improve Part 3 pass rates. Very few people are using it to gain experience or improve their skills – they’re using it to make money as if they were qualified instructors.
If the terms of the trainee licence were enforced, would the pink badge be a good thing? Personally, I believe it would. However, even though many current ADIs used the pink route to get their green badges, they are often staunchly anti-pink now. I know of at least one very frequent and opinionated contributor to several forums who advertised himself clearly as though he were an ADI while he was on a pink. His training school provided website facilities identical to those used by qualified ADIs in order for him to do it. And yet he is against the pink system. It seems that once they become “fit & proper” ADIs they start to vehemently oppose anyone doing precisely what they themselves did.
Another factor driving this anger is that the trainee licence is traditionally associated with larger driving schools such as RED or BSM – reviled by the ignorant masses, and blamed for flooding the market with new ADIs – and (horror of horrors) schools which offer franchises. It is that which the naysayers are opposing, not the pink badge itself.
The original BBC article reports that RED believes trainees should be licensed, because it “brings regulation into an unregulated industry.” RED says clearly that it believes trainees must receive expert training if road safety isn’t to be put at risk.
The DIA reckons that it is wrong for trainees to charge normal lesson rates because they are “less experienced”. I agree, but I would just remind anyone reading this that charging full rate has always been normal practice. Furthermore, no one at the DIA seems to be concerned with the fact that a PDI who hasn’t taken the pink route can pass Part 3 one day, and be out a couple of weeks later giving lessons without ever having done so before.
A driving instructor from Kent – who was on pink – says of his trainer (a large school):
If I needed advice from someone I could always ring up and get that advice but there was no actual supervision or follow-up calls or anything like that,” he said.
The quality of instruction isn’t so good, they may not be in full control of the pupil like a fully qualified instructor would be and some charge the same price for a lesser job.
You can see what I mean about people changing their colours once they become ADIs, can’t you? It worked for him, and he was happy to qualify, but is now critical of his trainers’ methods. This is typical of what happens to many people two seconds after they get their Part 3 pass.
The ADINJC makes the comment in the article:
Someone on a pink licence can actually fail the last part of their assessment to become a fully qualified instructor and on the same day go out and teach learners by themselves.
Yes. It’s always been like that. Nothing has changed. Nothing has degraded. Nothing has got worse. So why say it? What the ADINJC fails to explain is that a PDI has three chances to pass the Part 3 test, and failing one attempt while on the trainee licence doesn’t necessarily mean they are poor instructors, nor does it mean they are any worse than they were before they took the test. They are simply doing what the system allows them to – and always has. It’s what the pink system is.
The ADINJC’s comments also fail to address what I said above – that someone with absolutely no experience teaching real learners can pass Part 3 and be out teaching for real a week or two later, no questions asked! And to really set the cat among the pigeons, people who ultimately turn out to be appalling instructors can still sail through Part 3. There is a lot more that needs to change than just the PDI trainee licence. Poor instruction isn’t confined to PDIs.
As Trevor Wedge [former Chief Driving Examiner] says:
The trainee licence system has been set up to allow trainee driver instructors to gain some practice as they are preparing for the final part of their examination process.
They are encouraged to work very closely with a supervising instructor.
The fact that many trainees don’t work closely with a supervisor isn’t a fault of the system itself. It’s a fault with those who use and abuse the system. The terms of the licence are very specific, and breaching any of those terms is always a deliberate act – even if it is down to plain ignorance.
How do I know what colour badge my instructor has?
Someone found the blog on that precise term.
Simple answer. If his badge in stuck on the windscreen in full view, it’s probably green. If it is nowhere to be seen, it’s probably pink.
Ask him to show it to you. If he won’t, he either hasn’t got one, or it’s pink and he’s claiming otherwise. There is absolutely no reason for an instructor not to show you their badge unless they’re hiding something.
Can a PDI set up their own website?
There’s nothing that specifically says they can’t, but they must not pretend they are fully-qualified ADIs. However, you cannot do it if you are not part of a school – you can’t do it on your own.
It’s a really murky area, because you can argue that not making any claim at all means you’re not saying you are an ADI. However, you could be said to be implying it unless you state categorically that you are a trainee. The Pink Badge is supposed to be a training tool, and you can only advertise as part of your training establishment or school.
This story raises an interesting point. A Gloucestershire driving instructor is bemoaning the absence of speed limit signs on a local dual carriageway. Basically, there are speed limit signs – but these occur before a roundabout, and there are no subsequent repeater signs after it.
We have quite a few such roads in Nottingham. The regulations say that small repeater signs should be placed at appropriate intervals, but as long as there is a main sign to indicate where the limit comes into force then no rules are being broken. Usually, repeater signs are missing because someone has forgotten to put them back after road works or the replacement of lights which have been damaged in accidents.
If you look at the photo accompanying the story from the Gloucester Citizen, the street lighting in the background is the new “energy efficient” kind.
I’d lay odds that before this lighting was put in there would have been repeaters, and whoever authorised/planned the lighting upgrade was responsible for not replacing the signage to the same standard. It’s a script played out by councils up and down the country.
It isn’t just speed limits, either. This one around here uses the mini-roundabout sign to warn of an upcoming mini-roundabout.
As far as I’m aware, it should be the red and white triangle sign that warns of an upcoming hazard. The blue mini-roundabout sign is supposed to say “here it is, so give way as necessary”. In fact, just round that bend there’s another blue circle correctly placed at the actual roundabout.
Then there’s this roundabout which is on test routes. Note the blue circle with the arrow – which denotes that you should “keep to or pass on the left”.
All the signs on all exits of that roundabout are the same. They should be a horizontal left-pointing arrow which denotes that you should only “turn left”.
Indirectly it is a dumbing-down problem. Specifically, dumbing-down has resulted in people who are too dumb to put the correct signs back up when they take them down or install new road layouts.
The problem is even worse in road works – and Nottingham is the Road Works Capitol of the World.
I’m not convinced it is specifically a problem for learners, as is claimed in the original article. It’s the same for everyone. In fact, learners should have it easier if they have a good instructor to explain it to them. However, it sometimes takes several trips on the same route to figure these things out, and that can’t be right.
He’s a nice story about a young girl who passed her driving test – after being told she’d never even pass her theory test.
However, the story makes me angry for a number of reasons. First of all, dyslexia is absolutely no bar whatsoever to either passing the theory test or to being a safe driver once you have. At worst, it is an obstacle which has to be overcome (it’s pretty obvious that difficulty in reading or comprehending words is going to be an issue, but it doesn’t have to be a terminal one).
Dyscalculia isn’t something I have any direct experience of as far as I am aware. I have quite a bit of experience teaching dyslexic pupils, but for all practical purposes dyscalculia is simply “dyslexia with numbers instead of words”. Apparently, about half of all dyslexics are dyscalculic as well, although dyscalculia can be manifest by itself, so I have probably experienced it without realising.
I find that a significant number of my pupils either have dyslexia, or have been tested for it for specific reasons while they’ve been at school. Some are only “mildly” dyslexic, whereas one or two have been severely so. I always point out that many famous – and very successful – people have been dyslexic, and it didn’t stop them. My favourite one – though not many pupils have heard of her these days – is the case of Susan Hampshire, who was a famous actress when I was growing up.
So it is both surprising and very frightening that in the 21st century someone like Abigail Elstone should have apparently been written-off so early in her life (when she was seven) by the system.
This story from Australia is interesting. It refers to a woman, Michelle Leanne Thiele, who – twice in seven years – caused the death of other drivers by failing to give way at the same junction.
Deputy Coroner Anthony Schapel found Thiele was an incompetent driver who probably failed to look before she drove into the intersection.
She had five other serious traffic offences to her name. Her licence was revoked in 2010 and she has been denied even the opportunity to obtain a learner licence since then. She has appealed, and in its response the Motor Vehicle Act Review Committee said:
While the committee is of the view that you may be technically competent to operate a motor vehicle and you may pass a practical driving test if required to do so, it was not satisfied that you addressed and overcame your tendency for complacency and inattention to road rules.
The committee was not satisfied that issuing you with a learner’s permit subject to conditions requiring further technical driver training would necessarily address those attitudinal issues. The committee is not persuaded by the materials for consideration that the risk of you causing injury or death by accident to a member of the community was low.
Wow! Why can’t we have officials like that over here?
It’s a serious point. There are drivers out there who really shouldn’t be on the road, yet in the UK we absolutely never do anything about it other than maybe ban them for a short time. Oh, there are people at the end of their driving careers who – through reasons of deteriorating mental health just can’t handle a car anymore – who occasionally lose their licences, but even they would be allowed back on the roads if they passed their tests again. There is no competence-based assessment of someone’s suitability to be on the road in the first place – just the basic driving test.
In Australia, Thiele is quite rightly denied even that opportunity, and the reason given is basically incompetence when it comes to the practical part of driving. She is appealing further and the hearing is due next month.
Mind you, back in this hemisphere there have been recent rumblings in the EU about some sort of pre-licence assessment. Unfortunately, these have been of a psychometric nature – and anyone who has ever worked in industry will be fully aware of the pitfalls of psychometric testing – which is right up the alley of the current crop of coaching advisors and lifestyle coaches.
Last November I mentioned a driving instructor who had been measured at twice the legal alcohol limit while conducting a lesson. Well, here’s another instructor who chose a more creative way of throwing away all the hard work getting a green badge in the first place.
Andrew Paton from Aberdeenshire claimed he needed to get to a toilet urgently. He appears to have been about 3-4 miles away from his chosen lavatory location when he was observed undertaking a car, braking sharply, then passing a police patrol at 86mph. He accelerated up to 120mph at one point. Police commented:
This is a ‘professional’ driver that should have known better.
Note the use of inverted commas around the word “professional”. Ironically, the area this occurred in is extremely rural, and it happened last April – so the trees would have had some leaves for cover. He could have stopped in any one of a number places if he was that desperate.
Bearing in mind he was apparently clocked at 86mph and then 120mph by police, he denied these charges – precisely why is a mystery.
He was disqualified for two years and fined £350. A great way to end a career – assuming that the DSA removes him from the Register.
This is an old article, and I have edited it to my more recent style. I have not changed it, though.
IAM (the Institute of Advanced Motorists) is at it again. In poll it has commissioned, it reveals that “only 60% of drivers concentrate when they are behind the wheel”. The IAM chief executive comments:
Signs of not concentrating such as missed turnings or uncancelled (sic) indicator lights are commonplace. Simply not concentrating is a key cause of crashes yet it is not borne out in statistics because drivers rarely admit to it in police reports or on insurance forms.
What he’s saying is that out of a poll of 1,500 people – who are at liberty to lie as much as they want and will if it makes them look good – is more accurate than factual data. And the facts do not tally with the inane poll.
Everyone loses concentration occasionally, and if 60% of drivers claim they don’t then they are either liars, or they didn’t understand the question. IAM is muddying the waters with nonsense like this.
Knowing my two boys are that much safer on today’s dangerous roads is a huge reassurance. Lots of young people pass the DOT’s (sic) standard test by the skin of their teeth and go around thinking they’re fantastic drivers, so the fact James and Ben have the IAM certificate makes me feel 100 per cent better.
An IAM certificate does not make you a good driver. And it is suicidal to go around thinking that you are a good driver, especially if you lack experience.
It’s great that these two lads have a positive attitude about driving. But it is precisely that – their positive attitude – which their lack of experience could end up exploiting. An IAM certificate for these two lads is as worthless as the “DOT” one the mother deriding. Experience is the key, with caution while you are gaining it. Experience does not fall down like manna from heaven just by taking an IAM test. It is acquired over many years. This is indirectly confirmed by IAM:
[IAM] Group secretary Denara Holmes says it’s unusual for people younger than this to take the IAM test.
Yes, because it is pointless for them. It’s just a badge they can wear. Without experience, advanced assessments are a waste of time.
Advanced driving courses and certificates are not a panacea by a long mile. It becomes irritating that those who take them almost invariably end up decrying the normal driving test and, by implication, people like me who work bloody hard to teach people to drive.
In spite of what “Ben” (one of the boys involved) says, driving lessons do not “just teach you to pass the test”. They put you in a position to go out and safely gain experience, and that has always been the purpose of the driving test. It’s the first step on a lifelong learning curve – and you are not at the end of that curve merely because you did an IAM test!
Taking an IAM test and getting the official customised Zimmer frame as a reward may well be part of that learning curve for many, but the normal driving test is right at the front of it. You can’t do the IAM test before it and doing it just after is absolutely pointless – except to gain some sort of badge. Indeed, a lot of information is missing from this story, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least to discover that a Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme was involved somewhere.
Back in December 2013 I reported that the upcoming merger between DSA and VOSA – which was supposed to save money due to streamlining – was planning to spend £35m by contracting someone “to help manage and organise the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency’s (VOSA) and Driving Standards Agency’s (DSA) legacy IT infrastructure after the two organisations merge in 2014”.
Well, if I’m reading this right, they are now looking for someone to support their IT after the merger. This appears to be a completely separate issue, and is set to cost a further £12m for at least two years.
Remember that this is not the DSA’s or VOSA’s fault. It is the government.
As I said previously, there is no way the DSA can perform at its current level by merging with VOSA (and ditto for VOSA). They are totally separate functions. This was made all the more apparent when I realised that VOSA uses Lotus Notes for its email system, whereas DSA uses Microsoft Exchange.
The company I used to work for switched from Microsoft to Lotus at one stage, and it was utter chaos. Lotus Notes is a pile of crap on so many fronts that its benefits are completely eclipsed. It appeals only to Microsoft-haters just on principle, and anyone switching from the logical Microsoft system is going to have a nightmare adapting to the illogical Lotus one if that’s the route they go down – and since VOSA is the dominant body in the merger, that route is quite likely.
This came through at the weekend, but the story is now being covered in more detail in the media. It tells how Martin Olujosun, 22, went berserk after he failed his test in Gillingham.
Olujosun initially claimed to have acted in self defence (or “defense” if you’re a Daily Mail hack with a poor command of English). He attacked examiner, Darral Gregory, who sustained a splintered bone in his shoulder. Olujosun threatened to find out where Gregory lived and kill him.
Initially, after learning that he’d failed, Olujosun tried to punch his examiner in the face. A scuffle ensued, which resulted in Gregory sustaining the damaged shoulder. The initial story at the weekend also mentioned that Olujosun attempted to play the race card. His defence had clearly been reading The Big Book Of Stupid Language when offering mitigation:
He regrets it. If you held a gun to his head he can’t tell you why, he just lost it, he’d just lost his mother.
Well, obviously that makes it all right, then. Incredibly, Olujosun was not jailed, but received an 18-month suspended sentence – once again proving that UK Law is a complete ass.
Unfortunately, I have no control over the specific ads which appear on the right of this blog. I can block an entire group (like pornography), but I can’t pick and choose individual adverts within a group which I allow. One advert in particular has just caught my eye.
Be aware that Direct Driving Tests.org is not an official DSA website, and they will almost certainly charge you extra for booking your test. I can’t say that you would end up losing your money if you used Direct Driving Tests.org, but there are plenty of others who deliberately make themselves look official and who would walk away with your money. If I could block this particular advert – which has plagiarised the old DSA arrow logo purposely to mislead people – I would. This outfit has been slammed by the ASA on previous occasions (they use various names to try and lure people in).
The only site you should use – unless you really want to spend more money than necessary and even risk not getting a test at all – is GOV.UK.
Your car theory test should cost £31, and your car practical test either £62 or £75 (depending on whether you do it on a weekday or a weekend). If any website charges a different amount, hit “cancel” immediately and use GOV.UK.
It would appear that Direct Driving Tests.org charges an additional £23 to book your practical test for you! You’d be far better off spending that on an extra lesson. And remember that if any company charges a similar additional fee for the theory test, you could get much better training materials for less than £5 on your smartphone and less than £8 for a DVD from Amazon.
the theory test or to being a safe driver once you have. At worst, it is an obstacle which has to be overcome (it’s pretty obvious that difficulty in reading or comprehending words is going to be an issue, but it doesn’t have to be a terminal one).