ADI - Diary Of An ADI

Cycling Activists Attempt To Sell Votes

09/12/2013

I’m not sure if this is legal – but even if it is, it’s totally wrong from a moral standpoint. It’s a story in The Independent about how “cycling activists” are attempting to sway the results of local council elections by offering their votes to “bike-friendly candidates”.

Various activist groups are involved. To quote one:

Chris Peck, campaigns co-ordinator at national cycling charity CTC, said the elections were a “major opportunity to ensure that cycling is still seen as a high priority”. “Councils have huge budgets and huge power,” he said. “They are places where we need to spend a lot more effort on converting people to support cycling.”

Note how this comedian misses the point completely – as do all these radical cycling numpties. His aim is to get cyclists on roads whether it’s safe or not – and he’ll sell his vote to get his way.

The article also mentions a Birmingham cell who are calling for changes on a major link road on the strength of a single fatality of a 13-year old over two years ago, even though the driver of the lorry was jailed for dangerous driving. Again, they miss the point entirely – if the driver was at fault, what is wrong with the road? What is there that specifically needs to be changed that would have prevented the incident?

The problem is that if you asked any Spandex-wearing activist, they would have every single road in the country changed. None of them can understand that roads are dangerous by virtue of the fact that big, heavy machinery travels on them. There are those whose political maturity is still in the womb on this topic, and who seriously see banning those nasty machines from roads as a genuine solution. They forget that there are already “roads” where traffic is banned. Those roads are called “cycle paths”, and many of these Spandex-wearing politicos refuse point blank to go anywhere near them.

Those last two articles I wrote concerning cyclists have generated a lot of blog traffic via Twitter and Facebook. As I’ve pointed out before, I don’t allow comments on this blog because they’re just an excuse for juvenile prats to swear and post links to pornography sites. And the contact form makes it clear that any abuse through that will immediately be reported to the sender’s ISP (and you CAN be traced, so don’t kid yourself that you can’t), and I guess that’s why hits to that page also skyrocketed, but only produced one actual submission.

The reader who responded refers to the “idiotic” cyclist shown in the photograph in the post about HGV drivers being forced to take mandatory cycling lessons in Islington. He asks where I think he should ride instead (I’ve included the picture again). Well, the answer is simple: anywhere else – just not there! London cyclist dicing with death

Cyclists seem unable to comprehend anything that doesn’t go 100% in their favour. In this case, it just amazes me that they cannot understand that although the cyclist in the picture may well have every right to do what he’s doing, he would have to be a complete and utter pillock to actually do it.

It’s like sticking your hand in a blender or an open fire – yes, you have every right to do it if you choose to do so, but if you get injured (and even if you don’t) you’re going to have to accept that you’re still a prat.

Irrespective of who would be to blame, if one of those lorries swerved – to avoid another cyclist, for example – the cyclist would be dead. And no doubt the Spandex-clad fingers would then start pointing at the HGVs again.

The simple fact is that the degree of danger for a cyclist varies from nothing to almost total, depending on where (and how) he rides. Riding between lorries, or in among large numbers of lorries, is right up at the bad end.

Nothing can alter that, including the ridiculous idea from the Greenies that lorries should be constructed out of glass to give 360° vision in all three dimensions (or possibly all four dimensions if it’s an activist-led idea). Even if that ever happened – and it won’t – it would take decades to implement.

It’s also worth me repeating what I said to that reader in response to various other accusations:

I ride a bike
I use cycle paths
I avoid riding among traffic, especially on purpose
I teach pupils to be careful around cyclists
I teach pupils what cyclists behave like
My pupils see frequent examples of what cyclists behave like

So there is no point whatsoever trying to pretend that all cyclists are angels. They aren’t.

Shortly after I published this I received another email from a reader. Here it is in full (with his permission):

Cyclists

I have to say, I really enjoy reading your views on cyclists as they are more or less exactly the same as mine.

Where I live and teach Corby and Kettering) there is an elderly guy, who I’m told by one of my pupils used to be her geography teacher. He ‘rides’ one of those contraptions where the user is pretty much lying down, and will do so regardless of the queues of traffic building up behind him. We currently have a lot of major road works in the area, notably the A6003 between Corby and Kettering, where there are lane closures and contra flow systems in place. It’s a fairly common sight to see a queue a couple of miles long behind this idiot as he will exercise his right to ride it anywhere he wants regardless of how much chaos he creates. He’s retired, and as such I can only assume he does it for the exercise and enjoyment, I’m just not sure if the thing he’s riding is even road legs, much less how he’s not dead yet, being no more than 18 inches off the ground.

Just thought I’d get that off my chest!

I’ve mentioned these lying-down bikes before – their proper name is “recumbent bike”. Around my way you usually see them on a Sunday on narrow country lanes, surrounded by a group of middle-aged men riding two or three abreast and travelling at low speed. The rider of the recumbent usually has a beard and legs that look like something out of a toothpaste tube. All of them are trying to act as if they were 20 years younger.

The cycling militia can rant on all they like about driving instructors feeling this way, but we are just talking sense.The simple fact is that eventually someone in authority is going to see have to see sense too and stop keep trying to pander to the Spandex Corps all the time.

Roads are for motor vehicles, and cycle paths are for bicycles. And as the number of people having absolutely no road sense but being encouraged to start riding a bike increases, the Law needs to start forcing cyclists to stay off roads and keep to cycle paths.

Cyclist Safety Is… A Laser Beam

08/12/2013

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, Computers & Tech, News

As the previous story shows, cyclist road safety is a hot topic at the moment. So it should come as no surprise that people are trying to cash in on it.

This BBC story tells of an apparently “hi-tech” solution “invented” by a woman from a company called Blaze. It isn’t hi-tech at all – not unless you class everything incorporating a laser as hi-tech.

What it does is project a cycle symbol on to the road ahead. That is, if it’s adjusted properly. If it isn’t, the cycle symbol will be projected into the air, or anywhere else the Neanderthal on the bike chooses to aim it. There’s also no mention of what happens to the projected light when it hits a puddle or bus shelter. We scientists would know that as something called “reflection”, and God only knows what is likely to happen if a bright green laser is reflected off a bus shelter into the eyes of a passing motorist, or off a puddle into the eyes of a pedestrian.

The spreading infestation on our roads of people on two wheels who only think of themselves means that badly adjusted hi-brightness white LED lamps is already a growing safety issue. A badly adjusted laser is going to be a hundred times worse.

Quite how the people responsible for this dangerous toy think it will improve safety is anyone’s guess. Because when some jackass ignores every safety guideline going and tries to cut up an 18-wheeler attempting to turn left on the inside, I can’t imagine having a laser torch will make much difference to the outcome. And if you’re in an HGV (or any other vehicle) and you see ten of these things flashing away at you from all angles on the road, confusion is the most likely outcome – not safety.

The About page on the Blaze website says it all:

Cycling is about independence. But it’s also about community. It’s different things to different people. A dawn riser racing to work to get her adrenaline fix. A student saving up for a weekend gig. A nature-lover doing his bit for the environment.

Currently, urban cycling favours the brave, the reckless even, the ones willing to fight for their place on the road. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

I couldn’t have written a better reason for introducing mandatory IQ tests for cyclists if I tried.

The best thing London’s councillors could do is ban this thing before too many are sold. It needs proper safety testing by independent testers – not by pro-cycling commercial groups.

Mandatory Cycling Lessons For HGV Drivers

08/12/2013

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, News

In order to understand the logic being applied by Islington Council, you have to take a look at the picture below.

Obviously, the only conclusion to be drawn from the idiotic behaviour being demonstrated by the cyclist is that HGV drivers need to take mandatory cycling lessons.

Yes, that’s right. Islington’s knee-jerk reaction to the recent spate of cyclist fatalities (and innumerable other non-fatal incidents) in London is to make it compulsory for HGV drivers working for the Council to take the so-called “Safe Urban Driving training course, or equivalent”.

That “or equivalent” part probably means that an NVQ in Pigeon Spotting would also suffice, but that’s just speculation on my part.

Of course, to anyone with any sense, the picture above would immediately prompt the introduction of mandatory IQ tests for cyclists – but we’re talking about a right-on leftie group, here.

As you’d expect, positive sounding grunts have come from pro-cycling groups. However – and also as you’d expect – the proposals don’t go far enough for them.

Ideally we’d like to see lorries redesigned so they do not have blind spots, by lowering the windscreens to knee height, such as you see in coaches or some rubbish trucks.

The moron in the photo would obviously be totally safe in that case. I mean, it’s obvious. And then some prat in the Green Party says:

Getting heavy goods vehicle drivers out on their bikes will help build understanding between cyclists and lorry drivers. However we must ensure that drivers of these large vehicles are not “driving blind” through crowded city streets.

I despair that society has degenerated to the point where people can make puerile comments like this from positions of perceived power and responsibility. They’re just idiots.

As long as people like the guy in the photograph exist, it is obvious what needs to be done – and it doesn’t involve re-training anyone driving a motor vehicle.

DSA/VOSA Merger – Saving Money?

07/12/2013

DOAADI

ADI, Computers & Tech, DSA, News, Transport

I found this in the newsfeeds. I’ve already reported on the upcoming merger between VOSA and DSA into a single body, and how it is supposed to save money by streamlining the functions carried out by both bodies.

Well, this latest story suggest that a contract is going out to tender for 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”.

It will cost £35 million.

It never ceases to amaze me how this government can say and do two completely contradictory things. The merged body is going to be more bureaucratic than the two separate entities ever were. Heaven knows what will happen to the service levels.

DSA/VOSA Merger: Update

29/11/2013

DOAADI

ADI, DSA, News

Back in June I mentioned that the DSA and VOSA would be merging in 2014. This latest news release from the DSA says that the new single agency will be called the “Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency”. I am assuming it will be known as the DVSA, though this abbreviation is not used in the release.

Obviously, there is more involved than just a name change (that petty accusation is in the sole domain of the web forum agitator).

All documents bearing the DSA logo will remain valid until further notice, and ADIs will not need to change their badges until the normal renewal times. Instructors will still be known as “DSA approved ADIs” until further notice. Again, I assume we will become “DVSA approved ADIs” at some stage. No DVSA logo is yet given.

It’s worth pointing out – to the agitators in particular – that this change is a government thing. It isn’t something the DSA can be blamed for.

You Can’t Have It Both Ways

28/11/2013

DOAADI

ADI, General, Training

I sometimes wish parents would get it into their thick, money-grabbing skulls that you can’t just count on “getting lucky” and pass your driving test if you can’t drive, anymore than you can count of winning the lottery if you don’t buy a ticket!

I don’t think they realise what kind of rubbish parents it makes them by even hoping that little Jonny or Kylie might “get lucky” in the first place – especially because even if they did get lucky, they’d then stand a bloody good chance of getting “unlucky” and killing themselves (or someone else) once they got out alone and started showing off.

Two things got me thinking about this recently. The first was a call from an ex-pupil who’d passed her test in an automatic well over a year ago but who had not driven since. She was taking auto lessons for almost two years before eventually passing her test on her seventh attempt. However, before that she’d been with me doing manual lessons, also for two years, and she never got anywhere near test standard. Don’t get me wrong – I’d tried to get her to switch to auto much earlier on in her training, but she refused because she’d bought a manual car. She was simply incapable of reliably mastering the foot coordination needed to stop without stalling. It was only when I found out she’d sold her car some time later that both me and her son got on to her again and finally persuaded her to switch. But as I say, it still took her another two years and seven test attempts.

Flatteringly, she always credited me with getting her through her test. She was a really nice lady and we’ve always stayed in touch by telephone, and although I hadn’t heard from her for a year, she called me when she recently bought her own car and asked if I’d take her out to get used to it.

I have to admit that I was very nervous. To be fair, she was actually much better than I had expected, but there were still many traces of the old style. For example, as I got her to pull into her driveway at the end of that lesson she nearly ran into a fence as she hit the gas instead of the brake. She planned to drive to work that day, and I warned her to be careful. But when I called her the next day to see how it went it seems she had already scraped her gatepost. To make matters worse, she called me the next day to tell me she’d done it again – this time causing somewhat more damage to the car.

It’s a horrible position to be in. I have no control over her because she is a full licence holder, and yet if I did have any control I would have forbidden her to drive at all. Part of me wonders how she will ever be a safe driver – in spite of having taken over 200 hours of lessons and seven tests! I really feel sorry for her. But this leads me on to the second thing – the thing that I was referring to right at the start.

I’m usually quite fortunate when it comes to people wanting to take tests before they’re ready. First of all, I try to nip it in the bud as soon as it starts – sometimes even nipping it before it starts (it’s in my T&Cs). If they still won’t listen, then the bottom line is that they’re not going to test in my car, and whatever happens after that is up to them. A good illustration of this is a pupil I had not long ago (or his family, anyway). He was a nice lad, but very quiet. So quiet, in fact, that I am certain that there was some underlying issue, though “the family” insisted not – even though they followed him around, even on some of his lessons. He’d apparently had quite a few lessons with a previous instructor, but his dad reckoned he was being taken for a ride. When he came to me he had a test already booked, which I made them cancel after I’d seen him drive. He couldn’t possibly have passed.

The trouble was, the dad kept saying “I’d like him to have a go” (i.e. at the test). I made it clear that there was no way he was going in my car if he was not likely to pass. I always explain that I could lose my job if I send dangerous pupils to test – which is technically true, even if it’s somewhat exaggerated (as an aside, it’s nice when the examiner comments that it was a “nice drive” as they leave the car. It’s less nice when it is obvious the candidate shouldn’t have been there to start with. The examiner knows, and so do you).

So anyway, they reluctantly agreed to “move” the original test back by just over a month. I’d have preferred an indefinite cancel until I could see light at the end of the tunnel, but they were obviously just trying to keep the number of lessons to a minimum. In that extra time, the lad took just three 1 hour lessons (with several cancellations). He couldn’t do any of the manoeuvres correctly, nor were they getting better very quickly, and the pressure to get him to test standard with yet another idiotic test date looming was huge. To be honest, since he also just wanted to “have a go”, the pressure was much worse for me. I had also discovered since taking him on that in the case of reversing into a corner he strongly believed that when the kerb was coming towards him in the mirror then it was moving away in reality (honestly, he said exactly this), and it meant that every single time we did it he would repeatedly and determinedly steer the wrong way (or in random directions if he tried to think about it). With the test only weeks away, and a couple more hours of lessons at best, I couldn’t see how I’d be able to fix this and everything else in time.

The last straw came on his final lesson with me. I asked him to follow the road ahead at a large, very busy, light-controlled junction. As the lights changed we drove into it – and then did an emergency stop right in the middle as he suddenly decided he didn’t know where “straight ahead” was (I stress again that his test was literally a fortnight away). On that same lesson, on three separate occasions I asked him to turn right – either at lights or at junctions with filter lanes – and on every occasion he made no attempt to move the car into the appropriate lane, and would have turned right across other traffic. And no matter how many times we travelled the same road with speed limit changes from 20/30, 30/40, or back again, he would simply not see the signs at least once per lesson and I’d have to intervene. And finally, on that last session, we had a go at reversing into a corner and he just drove straight into the kerb (like he did on every previous lesson).

At that point I terminated the lesson and went to speak to his father. I told him that the lad simply wasn’t ready and that they should just cancel the test and not put him under such pressure. Yet again, the father repeated that he “just wanted him to have a go [at the test]” – at least the fourth time he had said it to me. Yet again, I made it clear that I was not taking him to test because he had no chance of passing as things were. My argument about unfair pressure on the lad was totally lost on this guy. I never heard from them again, and my blood runs cold at what could happen to this obviously vulnerable young man if he goes to test or – worse – if he passes too soon and is as unpredictable on the road as the lady I mentioned above.

What makes it particularly annoying is that my aim is to get pupils to test standard quickly and efficiently. I’m fully aware that learning to drive is expensive, so I push them hard to get them up to a safe standard. If I ever thought I was milking people for money then I’d give the job up instantly – my moral code is better than that. And yet with some people this just will not sink in. The guy in question only wanted his son – a young man who obviously had problems – to take a test that I knew he had no chance of passing on the off chance he’d pass, with no regard for what might happen to him if he did. And God knows what stories they’ll be telling their next instructor about me.

One thing is certain, though. I’ll sleep easier now. I wonder if the young lad’s father will? Unfortunately, he is completely clueless about the matter, so I doubt that it will affect him.

So You Passed Your Part 3! What Now?

26/11/2013

DOAADI

ADI, Training

I originally wrote this back in 2013, but it has become popular recently (late 2022).

Someone found the blog on the term “I just passed my ADI part 3 and don’t know what to do next”.

It’s also a common question on the forums, alongside “should I become an ADI? – which I explain in great detail here. The stock answer from the illuminati is that you shouldn’t do it, quickly followed by various diatribes about franchises, how you should strike out on your own and not pay any money to anyone else for either your training or your workload. But you don’t want to hear that, nor should you have to – you’ve passed your Part 3 and you want to know how to move forward.

Let’s get a few things straight. People have failed at this job since the dawn of time. That’s because if you can’t get the work (i.e. turnover) then you’ll simply go under. That was as true 20 or 30 years ago as it is now. The only thing that’s different is that it is perhaps a little harder to get the work these days – not only because there are more ADIs around (though this is less of a problem than the illuminati would have everyone think), but also because those that are already doing the job are offering silly prices, and also that many new learners tend to go for established, recommended, or easily found instructors or schools.

Running any business is very straightforward. All you need is a) products to sell, and b) customers who want to buy them. It’s no different running a driving school – by passing Part 3 you have your product, but the trick now is finding customers to sell it to.

The information you get from forums (superseded by social media nowadays) is highly misleading. That’s because few ADIs will ever be open and honest about how difficult it was to get started, or how difficult it is to remain in business. Most haven’t got a clue how well they are actually doing at it, even when they’re doing badly. Over the years I’ve watched many of them claim to be setting the world on fire, only to watch them go through not having enough work, having too little work, thinking of becoming bus drivers, and finally… becoming bus drivers! And yet those same people will still advise you to do what they did and start out completely independent, even though it clearly hasn’t worked for them.

They’ll claim to have gone independent from the moment they passed Part 3 (which in some cases is a plain lie), got a full diary within weeks (which is usually a massive exaggeration), and say they have a “waiting list” of several months (which is just nonsense, because if someone wants to start taking lessons they aren’t going to hang around until you become free). Even if there were ADIs who genuinely did do all that they claim in the timeframe they mention (and in the here and now – not 30 years ago), the simple truth is that for 99.9% of all other ADIs it was harder and took much longer.

A lot of people ask me for advice, and this is what I tell them.

Go for it!

You passed your Part 3 after spending all that money on training. Now go and make a success out of it – because it IS possible.

Know your financial targets

No rocket science here. Know how much you need to earn (as distinct from how much you’d like to earn), and work from there. Don’t plan on getting a full diary from Day One – you’ll only end up disappointed. Success is about making a living and not about working 60 hours a week. Of course, if you do get a full diary and end up working 60 hours a week, treat it as a huge bonus.

Check local AA lesson prices

Being a national school, the AA’s prices are a useful barometer. If the standard hourly rate for your area is £28 or more then you are likely to be able to get work. If the AA rate is less than that then you may have more difficulty finding work and will have to allow a little extra time for your plan to dominate the world.

Franchise or independent?

If you need to pay bills you would have to be insane to rule out joining a franchise – at least in the beginning. If you can generate all your own work, being independent is easily the cheapest option. However, all those failed and struggling ADIs out there thought that they could generate the work, too. It isn’t that easy.

How do I advertise myself?

One way or another it will cost you. It’ll cost you time, and it will cost you money. Unless you have plenty of both to spare, a franchisor will be able to spend the money more effectively and will likely be able to obtain a better return on the investment than you could achieve on your own. You can use your time on a franchise to improve your reputation and brand image, and then cut the apron strings when you think you’re ready. That might take anything up to several years – but at least you’ll be growing your business.

So I can do that myself, right?

In theory, yes you can. But as I have already pointed out, the job market is full of failed ADIs who were absolutely convinced that they – for the first time in recorded history – would do something no other ADI has ever managed (though many have attempted), and corner the entire market whilst simultaneously sending all franchises to hell. Honestly, just about every new ADI thinks in terms of hanging on to all that lovely money from their pupils. That’s why you’re asking this question in the first place, because a little voice inside your head is advising you to pocket every penny without any consideration for how you will actually get those pennies. You can spend hundreds – even thousands – of pounds on advertising and get absolutely no work out of it as a result. If you can afford to gamble with failure like that, by all means go ahead – but you have been warned.

Big franchise or little franchise?

Ultimately, getting work all comes down to advertising. Even the smallest of local franchises will probably be able to advertise more effectively than a solo ADI could. As the size of the school increases, the amount they spend also increases – but so does the return on that spend. The large national and semi-national schools can produce hard-hitting campaigns which attract a lot of interest.

Are there any guarantees?

Absolutely not. A franchisor cannot guarantee work anymore than a solo ADI can guarantee it. However, it is fair to say that if a large franchisor is having difficulties, anyone trying to operate independently in the same area will likely be having it worse. So conversely, in a more realistic climate where there is work to be had, the franchisor will probably have more success getting it than the average solo instructor.

Undercutting gets me more work, right?

In theory, yes. In practice, no – and it also reduces your profits. You see, it’s all very well knocking a few pennies off the lesson rate and playing the supermarket game of labelling things at £29.95 instead of £30, but what happens when everyone is doing it and you have to drop down to maybe £23.95 in order to distinguish your product? Because then you’ll be earning up to £7 less for each lesson, and since you’ll have done it in the first place because you’re not getting enough hours in, you’ll have cut your turnover by around 25%. And I can assure you that any work you do attract will not offset that lost income. At best, you’ll simply end up doing more work for less money. Go down this path and you’re well on the road to ruin.

But don’t pupils want cheap lessons?

Oh yes. People would like cheap everything – until they actually get it, and then they realise that below a certain threshold you get exactly what you pay for. You see, the going rate for lessons which provide value for money for all those concerned IS around £30 per hour. At that price, the instructor can deliver a good lesson. As soon as you start chipping away at that the first thing to suffer is the instructor’s income. In order to rectify that – and in the face of probably still not getting enough new work to counteract the reduced prices – the instructor has to reduce his business overheads, and the largest overhead (apart from the car) is undoubtedly fuel costs.

What’s in a name?

Cutting fuel costs means doing less driving, and that means slower learning. And since pupils aren’t stupid, many will twig early on that they’re being held back – perhaps not deliberately, but still held back – and start looking for another instructor. This time around they’ll think twice about going for a cheap one and opt for a larger local or national school. And many first-time learners think like that right from the start and choose a big name – often on the strength of mum or dad’s advice. So there is quite a lot in a name.

Is it worth it?

If you put the hours in and can afford to be patient, yes. Definitely. But you aren’t going to get very far if this is going to be your main source of income and you are planning to do every school run for your own kids, or not work evenings or weekends, and so on. Even when you’re busy, maybe doing 30-40 hours a week, work can drop to below 20-25 hours the next week just like that due to test passes or cancellations. It can then take anything from days to months to creep back up again – it depends on all sorts of factors that are totally beyond your control. It’s the price you pay for being self-employed.

But how much can I earn?

The sums are quite simple, and depend on how many hours of lessons you can deliver. Let’s assume that it will cost you £100 a week just to keep a car on your driveway (and it WILL cost about that for a half decent car, no matter what the illuminati try and tell you).

If you do a fixed 20 hours of lessons at £30 an hour you will turn over £600, less the cost of the car and about £130 for fuel. That will earn you about £18,000 a year before tax.

You can pro rata that calculation for any number of worked hours as long as you increase the fuel allowance accordingly.

However, there is no way you can just dial up your working hours – you might get 40 one week, then 20 for the next couple of months. and dial up a salary like that. As I have already said, you could have 40 hours one week (I’ve had over 50 hours a few times), and then see it fall to less than 25 hours for reasons totally out of your control the next. Once you’re established, you will probably average about 30 hours per week in a typical year.

Franchise costs vary. In some cases, you provide your own car and then pay the franchisor to have their livery and advertising work done for you. In others, you pay a franchisor to supply a car and everything else apart from the fuel. If you took out a franchise with a big school like the AA, you’d be paying up to £200 a week for the car, so that annual before-tax wage for 20 hours would be about £14,000.

Don’t look down your nose at franchises! I’ve tried to make it clear that the theoretical £19,000 for 20 hours depends on everything working perfectly. The chances are you wouldn’t get anywhere near as many hours by yourself when you first qualify are remote, so £14,000 is not to be sniffed at.

The bottom line

Consider starting out on a franchise until you learn the ropes. Don’t dismiss the option outright, otherwise you may not be in the game in a year’s time (just like the people who are advising you to go solo now). Once you can let go, do it. But only go independent when you’re certain you can stand on your own feet. Do it too soon and you’ll likely end up throwing all the hard work involved in getting your badge down the drain.

Sixth Cyclist Killed In London In Two Weeks

21/11/2013

DOAADI

ADI, News, Transport

I started writing this a few days ago, when the headlines were trumpeting that a FIFTH cyclist in a week had been killed after being involved in a collision with a bus in Whitechapel. I’ve had to edit it now, as another story (from Camberwell) now informs us that the tally has risen to SIX in two weeks. And I’ve had to edit it again now that Boris Johnson is beginning to see sense and realise that – shock, horror – the problem might not actually lie quite so completely with the motorist at all.

After the fifth fatality, Nick Clegg – aka Minnie Mouse in our Mickey Mouse government – called for cyclists’ “superhighways” to physically separate cyclists from traffic. Yes, Minnie – sorry, Nick – they’re known as “cycle paths” here on Planet Earth, and many cyclists – particularly those belonging to the Militant Spandex Morons Wing – refuse to use them (usually in order to show other road users that they can’t be told where they can and can’t ride). This is the mentality of the people involved, unfortunately (and as I’ve said before, I’ve ridden with them, and I see them daily, and I know that this is true for many of them).

When are people going to get it into their thick skulls that cyclists and motor vehicles don’t mix, and nothing anyone can realistically do will prevent such injuries if we continue to encourage the unholy alliance that has been borne out of the Olympics and two Tour de Frances?

In spite of what the Militants would have everyone believe – on pain of prosecution for disagreeing with them, of course – roads are for motor vehicles. They are not for prats in Spandex who think they are Bradley Wiggins, and who appear to inject testosterone every morning in order to develop just the right amount of anger and attitude needed to “do a 10k” to work. Earlier today, I was parked up reading some texts when one went by muttering angrily to himself about something (possibly it was directed at me, since it’s quite common to hear this as they push themselves along inappropriate roads at speed (as an aside, you may remember Emma Way – the girl who tweeted that she’d knocked a cyclist over. She has been found not guilty of careless driving)).

What makes the first London story especially irritating is that Boris Johnson is quoted:

There’s no question of blame or finger-pointing. That doesn’t work in these circumstances.

No, Boris. That’s because in this particular case the Finger of Blame isn’t pointing at the trucker. If there was even the slightest indication that the hapless driver was at fault, the Finger of Blame would be already turning the key in the remand cell door lock! And in that same story, there is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog as some dipstick is already banging on about banning HGVs in London “during rush hour”. He hasn’t considered that “rush hour” in London is a nebulous thing that can last anywhere from 6am until after midnight depending on what has happened on the M25 and other major roads in and around the City.

Many lorries have carried warning signs like the one above for a long time now. And yet cyclists continue to ignore them. The Militants can argue all they like, but in yet another example I experienced tonight, I was at the Nottingham Knight roundabout during busy rush hour. The busy A52 crosses this, and the road I was on has one straight ahead lane (on the right), and two left turn lanes. You have to look for gaps and take your chances confidently – which I did, only to discover that some complete wanker in Spandex had pulled up into one of the left turn lanes and actually tried to cut me up!

Let’s get this in perspective: he was in the wrong lane, and he tried to cut ME up – during rush hour… on a 60/70mph road junction!

There was absolutely no reason for me to suspect he would be there, and he damned nearly got knocked off. I had to move into the inside lane nearest the roundabout prior to exit and then cut back over. And I nearly crapped myself when I noticed him as I initially accelerated away. A large proportion of cyclists are total prats like this guy, and I’d confidently bet that this particular one was a fully paid up Militant. God knows why anyone would be so stupid as to try and ride across the Nottingham Knight roundabout on a bicycle in the first place, unless it was just to show that they can.

The latest two London deaths both involved cyclists colliding with lorries. For the record, the other four cases can be summarised:

5 November – Mile End Road – cyclist in collision with a tipper truck

11 November – Central London – cyclist in collision with a coach

12 November – Croydon – cyclist in collision with a bus

13 November – Bow Roundabout – cyclist in collision with a lorry

A total of 14 cyclists have been killed in London so far this year, and nine of those involved lorries (at least two of the others involved buses or coaches, which are basically lorries with a posh top, but which don’t figure in the media stats because they’re protected by virtue of their “greenness”). The Bow story also mentions a separate incident around the same time where a cyclist was injured after colliding with a truck. Likewise, the Camberwell story also mentions a separate non-fatal incident at around the same time involving a cyclist colliding with a lorry.

I’m sure many people will be aware of the parable of The Emperor’s New Clothes. Well, politicians like Peter John (leader of Southwark Council) clearly aren’t when they call for HGVs to be banned during rush hour. The latest accident in Camberwell happened at lunch time (as did the one in Croydon) – nowhere near the official “rush hour”. Lorries and rush hour are NOT the common denominators here. Cyclists are.

The Bow story contains a telling few words. I’ve quoted them here:

The London Cycling Campaign (LCC) held a protest at the roundabout on Wednesday evening… the gathered cyclists also circled the roundabout slowly on their bikes.

You can see that many of these people simply aren’t normal. Apart from riding around aggressively with cameras strapped to their heads in order to stir things up as they see fit (and you just have to look on a few of their websites to see that that’s exactly what they wear these cameras for), they happily engage in militant traffic-disruption of this nature. For normal people, if someone is killed in a road accident they may go and lay some flowers at the roadside, carefully parking up somewhere so they can walk the last short distance. But for cyclists it’s different. They have to block the road on purpose and turn the whole thing into a quasi-politico-religious event. If it wasn’t for the 21st Century skyline, you’d be forgiven for thinking you were watching a bunch of Neolithic cave people celebrating the solstice.

Cyclists are their own worst enemies. The vast majority have no road sense whatsoever (like the “expert” I had to avoid tonight, and you can read between the lines for yourself in the Emma Way case), and of those that do they have such a piss-poor attitude that it overrides anything else. A perfect illustration of this was on the BBC Breakfast News in the wake of the fifth London fatality. They had a militant cyclist up in the Glasgow studio giving his opinion, and they showed a video that he had apparently taken on the Bat-Cam in his helmet where he was nearly wiped out by a lorry as he negotiated a roundabout.

What they didn’t discuss was how fast he had entered the roundabout in the first place, with no sign of slowing down, and quite possibly with no intention of “giving way” to anything. They didn’t discuss how difficult it is for lorries to stop – especially when they are fully laden, and especially if they’re confronted with a fast-moving idiot on a bicycle. And they didn’t discuss whether he’d actually seen the lorry in the first place. I mean, let’s be honest here. If you are a pasty white meat-bag held together with Spandex, and riding a bike that weighs only a few kilogrammes, you need your bloody head examining if you deliberately race on to a roundabout with a lorry coming at you – and that applies whether you’re wearing your Bat Cape and stupid helmet with integral camera or not. Because if anything goes wrong – like it nearly did in the case of the guy on Breakfast News, and like it could have done with me tonight – you’re going to get splattered. Not the lorry or car. But YOU. It doesn’t matter who’s right and who’s wrong if you end up in the morgue.

The Highway Code says:

61

Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

69

You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)

71

You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178).
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36(1)

72

On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

73

Pay particular attention to long vehicles which need a lot of room to manoeuvre at corners. Be aware that drivers may not see you. They may have to move over to the right before turning left. Wait until they have completed the manoeuvre because the rear wheels come very close to the kerb while turning. Do not be tempted to ride in the space between them and the kerb.

76

Full details about the correct procedure at roundabouts are contained in (see Rules 184 to 190). Roundabouts can be hazardous and should be approached with care.

77

You may feel safer walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge. If you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you should

be aware that drivers may not easily see you

take extra care when cycling across exits. You may need to signal right to show you are not leaving the roundabout

watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the roundabout.

78

Give plenty of room to long vehicles on the roundabout as they need more space to manoeuvre. Do not ride in the space they need to get round the roundabout. It may be safer to wait until they have cleared the roundabout.

79

Do not ride across equestrian crossings, as they are for horse riders only. Do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. Dismount and wheel your cycle across.

82

Level crossings/Tramways. Take extra care when crossing the tracks (see Rule 306). You should dismount at level crossings where a ‘cyclist dismount’ sign is displayed.

The problem is that virtually all cyclists contravene at least some of these rules (and more besides). Hand signals are a thing of the past – even if they’re used at all, they’re done badly. The guy in Scotland who was nearly wiped out certainly didn’t decide that it would be “safer to wait” – he just pelted on to the roundabout in front of a lorry which would quite possibly have been unable to stop in time anyway. The prat I encountered today was certainly in the wrong lane and behaving dangerously. You see them riding on busy trunk roads when there is a cycle path less than a metre away from them. And they will skip red traffic lights or ride on to pavements to avoid them at the drop of a hat. They frequently ride more than two abreast – even on narrow country roads – when they’re in full-on testosterone mode, blocking traffic on purpose (and it IS on purpose, believe me). And we’re not talking about a small number of transgressors here. Either through bloody-mindedness or stupidity, a huge number of cyclists behave like this.

And the number of cyclists is growing.

When I’m teaching people to drive, I drum it into them early on that they should plan to stop at junctions and roundabouts, and treat being able to keep moving as a bonus, and only then after they have properly assessed the situation. As a driver, and as an instructor, there is nothing I hate more than going round a roundabout, only to have people pull out in front of me. Even if I don’t physically HAVE to hit the brakes, the fact my foot moves just in case is just as bad. But there are many cases where lorries have already committed themselves before I come into view, and since they weigh up to 40 tonnes they aren’t going to accelerate away very quickly anymore than they’re going to stop in the middle of the roundabout when they see me. So I slow down to let them go.

So why is it that cyclists think they have the right of way in these circumstances?

However, it seems that a modicum of reality is returning to the ridiculous situation created by the Olympics and Tour de France. After two years of idiots who think they’re Greenies trying to introduce some sort of racial cleansing programme against those who say a bad word about cyclists, a few people in high places are starting to see a glimmer of light – which others are still trying hard to extinguish. The third story reports that Boris Johnson has talked of banning headphones for cyclists – clearly implicating them in a number of incidents. The Militants have attacked this as you can imagine.

The simple fact is that if these cyclists weren’t next to the lorries or buses at the time then they wouldn’t have been hit. Now whether that means they were there because they’d ridden badly is open to debate, but since several of these accidents happened on corners it doesn’t take a genius to work out that that is a possibility.

In spite of this – and in spite of the photo shown above – Chris Boardman is now asking for a ban on HGVs.

Mr Johnson said there had to be a “much bigger conversation about HGVs” and the dangers they pose when they turn left.

But he said imposing a peak-time ban risked damaging London companies and creating a “serious influx as soon as the ban is over”.

Boardman is in cloud cuckoo land. Boris Johnson appears to have at last made contact with reality. The only thing that can definitely be said is that cyclists are clearly too stupid to follow rules and safety advice. It’s like putting labels on things like mattresses (e.g. “do not eat”) – except in the case of cyclists, some prat is trying to remove all motor vehicles from the equation.

Restrictions and rules need to be applied to cyclists. Cyclists need to abide by these rules by Law. And we need to stop encouraging cyclists to get on to busy roads. If they want to ride they should go to country parks and do it, or stick to cycle paths. By Law.

Scumbag Jailed For 130mph Death Crash

14/11/2013

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, News

This is an old story from 2013. It has had a few hits lately, which makes me wonder if Li is out and checking his reputation.

A reader sent me this link. Martin Li, 22, from Hexham was put away for 8 years for various offences associated with the crash.

Lucy Duggan, 18, was a passenger in the car being driven by Li. He reached speeds of 130mph on bends in a 60mph zone and “floored” the accelerator. She was killed as he lost control on a bend and smashed into another car. Two other passengers in Li’s car, and a mother and daughter in the other car were seriously injured.

He could have been put away for much longer. And he should have been. British Law is a complete ass sometimes.

As an aside – and as I mentioned to the reader who sent me the link – in situations like this you have to wonder at the passengers involved to a certain extent. The reader assures me that Miss Duggan was pleading with Li to slow down. However, in all too many cases everyone in the car is having a whale of a time when prats like Li are busy showing off. It is yet another example in support of restricting the engine sizes these dickheads are allowed to drive, and banning them from carrying passengers.

Book Your Theory Test Slammed Again By ASA

06/11/2013

DOAADI

ADI, Driving Tests, DSA, News

Over the last year, the ASA has ruled against several scam sites. As I pointed out in that last article a few weeks ago, it is hard to separate them from each other as they all have similar names and employ similar scamming and lying tactics to force people to pay for rip-off services they don’t need.

This weeks ASA rulings have yet again pulled Book Your Theory Test Online Ltd up over deliberately misleading claims. I am assuming it is the same outfit of robbers from the last upheld claim – the word “online” is the only difference, as it is missing from this company title.

When will legislation be introduced to remove these scum permanently?

Category - ADI

61

69

71

72

73

76

77

78

79

82