Category - ADI

Coughing Fit Causes Welsh School Accident

I’m sure most people will have heard about the incident outside a school in South Wales, where a driver ploughed Lollipop Lady - school crossing patrolinto children, hospitalizing several.

Now that things have calmed down a bit, the driver is claiming that he blacked out after coughing. I’m sure that the authorities themselves will decide if this is a valid excuse of not, but I find it difficult to accept that this could happen at all, or – at the very least – that someone to whom it could happen so easily should even be driving a car. Especially an Audi, which is designed to go fast in the first place.

There are also calls for the school crossing patroller to be “recognised” for attempting to shield the children from the rampaging car armed only with her patroller’s “lollipop”. She ended up with two broken knees, a broken shoulder, broken elbow, and cuts and bruises. All extremely painful, and all the kinds of injuries that take a long time to recover from – if at all. But it could all have been a whole lot worse.

Council Traffic Wardens Killing Businesses In Somerset

This story in the news feed reports on how shop traders in the town of Crewkerne in Somerset are having their businesses destroyed by the local council.

There is a 30-minute parking limit – stupidly short in the first place – and yet wardens are parking for up to TWO HOURS while they hurry meet their quotas and try to ticket as many people as possible each day.

The Somerset County Council appears to be staffed by the usual crop of idiots. A spokeswoman says that wardens are “following the rules”.

Yes. That would be the rules set by the council, and which the council could change in the blink of an eye if it so wished. But it doesn’t want to change the rules, because that would cut revenue from PCNs. She adds:

There are circumstances where wardens are permitted to park in limited waiting zones and other restricted areas in order to carry out their duties.

So in other words, one rule for the council, and another for the common people. She doesn’t explain how the dire consequences of a member of the public overstaying their time is in any way less dangerous or inconsiderate than a spotty-faced oik employed by them would be.

It was exactly the same up this way when the Nottinghamshire County Council took over responsibility for parking tickets. The day it began, wardens were queued up like a pack of hyenas outside the now-defunct West Bridgford test centre trying to ticket people using the test centre.

Even today, most of them ride around on L-plated scooters as they scour every side road and alleyway, and they frequently ride like complete lunatics. I suppose you have to if you’re going to meet your weekly quota for people who have to be screwed out of their money on behalf of the Council.

DSA And VOSA To Merge In 2014

This came through on the newsfeeds. It says that from next year, VOSA (or Vosa) and the DSA will merge into a single, yet-to-be-named organisation. Both agencies will continue in their current forms for at least the next 12 months.VOSA and DSA to merge in 2014

There is mention of the possibility of “[reduced] fees” – and I take that to mean the possibility of cheaper driving tests and cheaper ADI licences. We’ll have to see.

Rosemary Thew, the current DSA Chief Executive, is leaving at the end of the month. No mention is made of why.

The merger appears to have come about as a result of the consultation on motoring services strategies which ran for 3 months from December 2012.

Edit: This DSA Alert just came through with the announcement. The alert says that Rosemary Thew is “stepping down and leaving the Civil Service”.

There’s no mention of Alastair People’s (the new joint Chief Executive) comment about possible lower costs.

AutoExpress Fuels The Fires

This article in AutoExpress trumpets that “young drivers could face wait to take test”. It’s really annoying that publications can put out rubbish like this without applying any critical editorial comment. They could have at least asked a few driving instructors… oh, wait. Maybe not.

Steven Hammond, the Transport Minister, gives a brilliant demonstration of why he should just talk plainly and clearly, and not try to be so clever when he says:

You are about to see from this Department a big piece of work going out to consultation on some ideas, and the meat and drink will be around people aged between 17 and 24.

What the hell does that mean? Why couldn’t he just have said “we are putting out a number of possible considerations to public consultation”? In any case, the last announcement of this kind involved driving instructors being able to take learners on motorways, and I think we all know how far that one got. But back to this particular set of nonsense, Hammond states the obvious, whilst simultaneously implying that he though of it first:

There is some interesting evidence that suggests we ought to have a period of time between gaining your provisional licence and taking your test, so you gain experience of the road.

I’ve been saying that for years, and so have a lot of others. It’s not a major new discovery – it’s just common sense. But he then says:

When we put the consultation document out, we’ll leave that [the timeframe] open to some people’s suggestions, but I’d suggest somewhere between six to nine months is appropriate.

So, the only people who will be affected will be the ones likely to pass quickly anyway. With official statistics putting the average number of training hours before test at around 45 hours, and with more and more people only able to average 1½ hours per week, many people are already taking 6 months or more to learn, so it would be no change. (Yes, I know that some do it quicker – I already said that, so don’t write in about it). He adds:

Other suggestions being considered include insurance premium reductions and looking at how young drivers use cars once they pass their test.

Oh, wow. Another great idea no one has ever thought of before. Black boxes, anyone? So it’s taken the government over two years to catch up. He digs his hole even deeper:

We’re looking at working with the insurance industry in terms of potentially offering some incentives to do a post-test lesson on motorway driving or night-time driving, alongside an insurance fee trade-off. Or if not, how we could encourage people to do it as part of their post-test training.

Brilliant! And we could give it a snazzy name. How about “Pass Plus”? Hammond should really give up on trying to add spice to his language:

There is also an appetite for looking at who is driving and how many people should be in the car in your first couple of years of driving.

We do see tragic accidents quite often where four or five young people in a car all get killed and quite often the driver isn’t over the limit, but is egged on by a number of people who are.

Another unique idea that hasn’t been mooted for at least the last two years, and mangled by his own way of badly wording things.

Hammond is on a different planet (like the rest of his party) – and AutoExpress is clearly flying out to join him by not applying any critical editorial to this story.

Anyone reading this should bear in mind that the consultation has not yet started. You can allow a year from when it does, and another year to implement any changes (bearing in mind that it will require changes to the law). Also allow for the fact that the usual radical groups will be all over it like a rash, and this may create further delay or result in some ideas not being implemented. So we’re looking at at least two years from today for anything to realistically happen. The next General Election is just less than two years away…

So, it will either be a cynical attempt to get votes (started early to see how it pans out) or something to forget and blame on the next party to get in (because there’s a good chance it won’t be the LibCons again).

Bill Plant ASA Rulings

I note from the newsfeeds that Bill Plant has been tussling with the ASA again. This time, rather than being on the offensive against other schools it Bill Plant logo holding imagefound itself having to explain some of its creative claims which had been challenged by one of its franchisees.

(Note that the stand-in logo to the left is used because last time (when they were challenging another school’s use of the word “national”) I got an email from them demanding that I remove their registered trademark from my news story. So this time, I removed it before I even used it. What makes me laugh is that I’ve never really had an axe to grind with Bill Plant, and I’ve always been fairly sympathetic towards them. It’s funny how being told to remove a logo – with “or else” being implied – can alter your way of thinking about someone. Another advertising faux pas, so to speak.)

You can read the full ruling for yourself, but the four points centred around a freephone number that wasn’t free, an inflated franchisee support claim, a misleading “free pupils” claim, and a misleading “free CPD” claim. All were upheld, and Bill Plant told not to do any of it again.

Elderly Drivers vs. Cyclists

A story came through on the newsfeeds concerning an accident in Australia, where an elderly nun had an epileptic seizure and hit a female cyclist, who was killed.

Elderly CyclistsI think my position on elderly drivers is clear, but in this particular case it wasn’t age that was to blame, but an epileptic fit. However, the website carrying the story is a cyclists’ site – my position where cyclists are concerned is also clear – and it makes a big issue out of calls by the dead woman’s husband for tougher measures against elderly drivers. As I say, it was an epileptic seizure and not specifically an age-related issue which caused the accident.If anything, it should be a call for tougher measures against epileptics!

Moving on, though, I noticed a couple of references to UK incidents in the article. One, from 2011, tells how an 85-year old ploughed through a group of riders, killing one of them, but who apparently didn’t realise anything had happened until his wife told him. Another story, from 2012, tells of an 84-year old who broke the back of a cyclist when he drove into him as a result of defective eyesight.

We need to get some perspective here. I agree wholeheartedly that anyone with poor eyesight or ill-health, and whose driving is affected as a result, should be taken off the road by force. They should not be allowed back behind the wheel unless they can prove their deficiencies have been corrected, and that should apply whether they’re 16 or 86. Ironically, the UK prides itself in allowing disabled people to get a licence earlier than the able-bodied, and in not taking licences off people when the evidence is screaming out that they should not be allowed near anything with moving parts.

But when you throw cyclists into the mix you have a completely different issue, because a large proportion of them are their own worst enemies. In that 2011 story, for example, the group involved was on a sponsored ride from Belfast to London, via Dublin and Bristol. This detail alone means that they would hardly have been riding in what I would call an inconspicuous manner. What I’m really getting at is that their purpose would probably have meant that they were on main roads, at all times of the day, and if they were anything like most of the cyclists I have to deal with they would have been riding at least two abreast. The purpose of their ride would have more than likely resulted in other behaviours likely to obstruct motorists and other road users on such roads.

None of that can possibly justify what the car driver did by riding into them, nor does it put up any sort of defence for his age-related weaknesses. But it Elderly Bike Rider certainly provides at least a partial explanation for why it might have happened when it did. After all, if the cyclists hadn’t have been there, the driver wouldn’t have hit them.

While I was out on lessons today, there were cyclists everywhere, and nearly all of them were causing obstructions. In one particular case, two of the idiots were riding side-by-side along the A52 towards Radcliffe-on-Trent on a 70mph dual carriageway. They were completely blocking one whole lane. They ought to have been on the cycle path which was a mere two metres to their left, but that’s not what these morons do. In another example, I was on a single track lane and as I rounded a corner an idiot on a bike came flying round the opposite way on the wrong side. These are not isolated examples, and “sensible” isn’t a word that appears in their vocabulary.

Since the Olympics last year the number of people riding bikes has skyrocketed, and the number of Silver Spandex Boys – middle-aged and elderly riders – has increased dramatically. Of course, no one is demanding that their eyesight or other faculties be tested, least of all the blinkered biker websites. These riders require no training and no licence, so no one can do anything to keep them off the roads. You have to face the fact that the only reason more of them aren’t injured or killed is because of the evasive action taken by drivers when they encounter them. It’s like when you have young children who run into the road without looking – every now and then one gets hit, but most drivers manage to slam the brakes on and avoid them.

Roads are specifically for cars, not cyclists. Cyclists are allowed to use them, but very few cyclists make any attempt to avoid conflict and – either through stupidity or arrogance – put themselves and others in danger. All that matters to the average cyclist is the cyclist!

Dealing with Emergency Vehicles

I originally published this article back in 2011, but I noticed that the subject has cropped up again. The first part of the text below is the original article.


A reader recently asked this question about emergency vehicles and what is the best course of action when dealing with them:

[This incident happened a few months back.]

I was approaching a large sized roundabout with the intention of going straight on. As I was nearing the first exit, I noticed blue flashing lights appearing from the first exit road, and saw an ambulance hurtling towards the roundabout at high speed, but with no sirens on at all. I didn’t spot the Ambulance until quite late on, but soon realised that it didnt look like it was going to stop, and was going to crash into me if I didn’t do something about it. In response I had to perform an emergency stop in the middle of the roundabout and give way to the ambulance which then carried on, still without any sirens on. Luckily there wasnt a car directly behind me or things could have been much worse.

My question is: Who was in the wrong in that situation?

First of all, it is useful to look at what Driving: The Essential Skills (TES) has to say about dealing with emergency vehicles:

Emergency Vehicles

Look and listen for emergency vehicles. As well as the normal emergency services – police, fire, and ambulance – certain others such as coastguard, bomb disposal, mountain rescue, and the blood transfusion service may use blue flashing lights. The police may also use red flashing lights. Doctors on call may use green flashing lights.

You should try to keep out of the way of any emergency vehicle. Check where they are coming from: behind (mirrors), ahead or, more importantly, across your path.

Don’t panic. Watch for the path of the emergency vehicle and take any reasonable – and legal – action possible to try to help it get through. They will not expect you to break the law, only to make a reasonable and safe attempt to help clear the way for them so that they can do the rest.

Look well ahead and choose a sensible place to pull into the side of the road, but do not endanger yourself or other road users or risk damage to your car.

Try to avoid stopping before the brow of a hill, a bend or a narrow section of road where the emergency vehicle may have difficulty getting through, but don’t

  • put yourself in a position where you would be breaking the law, for example by crossing a red traffic light or using a bus lane during its hour of operation
  • break the speed limit to get out of the way
  • risk damaging your tyres, wheels,, or steering by bumping up kerbs

Emergency vehicles are normally travelling quickly and it is important to clear their path to allow them to do so. However, ambulances may need to travel slowly even if they have blue lights flashing because of treating a patient inside. In this case it is important for them to have a smooth ride, so don’t drive in a manner that would cause the ambulance to brake or swerve sharply.

That’s the theory. However, in reality situations will arise which don’t fit in perfectly with the theoretical approach. The heat of the moment will affect how people react (and I suspect that goes for ambulance drivers as much as anyone else).

Now, what about guidelines for driving ambulances for the drivers themselves? It’s hard to find a definitive guide (well, I haven’t, anyway). But one thing can definitely be said:

They should not put anyone’s safety at risk!

That’s their own safety, their patients’, and other drivers’. Also, the UKEmergency website says:

Blue Light Exemptions

There is no authority that issues permission to use blue, green or amber lights on your vehicle. You must just follow the law.

Any driver can drive using blue lights without needing any higher qualification that a driving licence. Most services do insist on their drivers undergoing some form of advanced driver training though, and there are moves to establishing a national standard.

While using blue lights, drivers are exempt from a number of motoring regulations, including

  • treating a red traffic light as a give way sign
  • passing to the wrong side of a keep left bollard
  • driving on a motorway hard shoulder (even against the direction of traffic)
  • disobeying the speed limit (police, fire and ambulance services only)

However, they are not allowed to

  • ignore a ‘no entry’ sign
  • ignore a ‘stop’ or ‘give way’ sign
  • drive the wrong way down a one-way street
  • ignore flashing signs at level crossings or fire stations
  • cross a solid white line down the middle of the road*

*except in the same circumstances as everyone else (for instance to pass a stationary vehicle, slow moving cyclist or horse, or a road maintenance vehicle). This can cause problems for emergency drivers when other road users slow to let them pass where road markings indicate no overtaking.

Sometimes emergency vehicles may need to disobey other signs and regulations. This will depend on the professional judgment of the driver.

Or in other words, ambulance drivers have to drive within the law like anyone else at junctions, roundabouts, and so on.

Going back to the reader’s question, the first thing to remember here is that nothing serious happened, so no one was absolutely in the right or the wrong. We can only look at “what ifs” and make assumptions.

What if… the car driver had proceeded and the ambulance driver hadn’t stopped, resulting in the ambulance hitting the car? Then the ambulance driver would have been almost completely at fault.

What if… the car driver had proceeded without seeing the ambulance, the ambulance hadn’t stopped, and the car hit the ambulance? Then the car driver would have been significantly at fault, as would the ambulance driver.

What if… as a result of the car driver stopping on the roundabout, another car ran into the back of him? Then the second car driver would have been almost wholly at fault.

Assumption… that the ambulance driver wasn’t going to stop. In fact, he may well have been getting ready to, and just looked like he might not. We don’t know.

Assumption… that the ambulance driver hadn’t seen the car. He may well have done.

Assumption… that it was lucky no one was behind the car when it stopped sharply. The ambulance driver may well have seen this.

And so on. But having said all that, the ambulance really ought to have been using its sirens, and it shouldn’t have been driving in a way likely to cause problems for other road users. The UKEmergency website says as much.

In my reply to the reader, I said:

I think you did the correct thing under the circumstances, although from your description the ambulance wasn’t doing what IT should be doing properly (no sirens and not allowing for other road users). Like you say, it was fortunate that no one was behind you. Mind you, you must also allow for the fact that if there was, he would have probably seen the ambulance as well and also started to take action.

I don’t think you were in the wrong. Yes, I think the ambulance driver should have at least have been ready to give way if you couldn’t. Perhaps he saw it was clear behind you and just tried to force your hand – but it was assuming an awful lot.

Your apparent way of dealing with roundabouts isn’t wrong. However, now you know what unexpected things can happen like this, just keep an eye out for them in future. It could be boy racers or white van men going too fast.

Just learn from it and don’t worry. It’s one of those things, we all have them.

The important thing there is that we’re all human and we’re all learning – all the time… and that includes ambulance drivers. If something surprises you by emerging from an unexpected direction, next time you know to be wary of it in case it happens again. That’s exactly what the learning process is.

Finally, what we also have to remember is that most situations aren’t as complicated as this and it is usually just a case of slowing down, moving over, stopping, and so on as necessary.


I noticed on a forum that an ADI in the Nottingham area was recently saying that he’d been “forced” into a bus lane by a police car with its sirens on. He initially held his position, but then moved over when the police car moved up bumper-to-bumper.

First of all, the Highway Code (HC) is both clear and vague at the same time:

219

Emergency and Incident Support vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances, fire engines, police, doctors or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue, red or green lights and sirens or flashing headlights, or Highways Agency Traffic Officer and Incident Support vehicles using flashing amber lights. When one approaches do not panic. Consider the route of such a vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass, while complying with all traffic signs. If necessary, pull to the side of the road and stop, but try to avoid stopping before the brow of a hill, a bend or narrow section of road. Do not endanger yourself, other road users or pedestrians and avoid mounting the kerb. Do not brake harshly on approach to a junction or roundabout, as a following vehicle may not have the same view as you.

I’ve made the important bit bold and underlined.

But imagine that you’re complying with that and, as a result, are preventing an emergency vehicle from getting past you at all and so perhaps putting someone’s life at risk (i.e. in the case of the fire or ambulance services going to a call)? It isn’t a far-fetched scenario – during rush hour it is almost a given that unless you move you will hold up the emergency vehicle in question.

In addition, some police forces make it abundantly clear that you’re not supposed to break the law or risk a fine, e.g.:

Some confuse the issue enormously by half-suggesting that you break the Law and then fight it in court and hope for the best. They even half-imply that you might not get away with it, e.g.:

  • Thames Valley Police

The Fire Department appears to have a real ego problem over the subject. Both of these examples clearly advise you to “consider” pulling into a bus lane with no thought for your failed appeal against some butt-head council pen-pusher:

  • Humberside Fire & Rescue
  • Dorset Fire & Rescue

The situation is made even more confused by the fact that some councils will crucify you if you so much as move half a centimetre into a bus lane, no matter what excuse you give. Some are rather enlightened. Nottingham City Council, for example, says:

What is a good reason for driving in a bus lane?

There are a small number of reasons when it is OK to drive in a bus lane during the time it is in operation. Among these are;

  • when directed to do so by a police officer in uniform;
  • to avoid a collision or debris in the road;
  • to drop off or pick up a passenger;
  • to undertake a vehicle turning right (in this case ensure that the route back out of the bus lane is clear before undertaking);
  • To enter or exit a driveway to a roadside property.

In all cases it is expected that the stay in the bus lane is as brief as possible.

They don’t specifically mention emergency vehicles, but their policy is so relaxed that it’s fairly obvious that these are included.

Even London has a nice, clear policy:

When can I enter a bus lane?

  • During non operational times. The times of operation are indicated on the sign
  • If you want to turn left within 20 metres of the junction – an arrow or a dotted white line will indicate if this is allowed
  • If avoiding road works or emergency vehicles

But other councils (and Nottinghamshire County Council is a good example of this, as is Aberdeen) seem to purposely avoid mentioning it – even though it is one of the most common occurrences and, therefore, one of the most common frequently asked questions by drivers. You can only guess at what reasons they might have for deliberately not providing the most needed of information, but ka-ching! ka-ching! does spring instantly to mind.

It would be the most obvious, logical, sensible, and reasonable thing in the world for all councils to say that it’s OK to enter a bus lane to let an emergency vehicle pass. But as long as just one of them insists on playing stupid games like this then there is no obvious, logical, sensible, and reasonable solution for the motorist.

The only option these idiot councils leave drivers with is to ignore emergency vehicles, and to hell with whoever is in need at the other end. That’s what happens when you put wet-nosed graduates or elderly busybodies with nothing better to do in charge of committees. As I said recently, they have about eight brain cells between them.

Better yet, the government could do something about it and get it written into the HC – then the idiots in the councils would have to do as they’re told.

In the meantime, it makes sense to look up the guidelines for whatever council area you are giving lessons in. Some are enlightened. Some aren’t.

How do I give way to an ambulance on a motorway with no hard shoulder?

Check your mirrors and adjust your speed by easing on or off the gas to create space either for cars in front of you to pull over, or to allow the ambulance to do whatever he decides to do. Just don’t ghost alongside someone else as this will prevent the ambulance getting past at all. Move to the left side of your lane if necessary. If you’re in the outside lane, check your mirrors and signal to move to the left – someone will likely slow down to allow you in. Don’t panic, and don’t steer or brake harshly.

Banned Driving Instructor: A Warning

This story in the newsfeeds reports how a (now ex-) driving instructor in Northern Ireland was wandering around a shopping mall with a camera attached to his shoe, attempting to take photos up women’s skirts.

He was called before the Department of the Environment – the people who issue and maintain ADI licences in NI – and told his licence was revoked.

There is a lot more information in the stories in the Belfast Telegraph. So much information, in fact, that it is possible to pull in a  lot more information from numerous other sources concerning this instructor. He only qualified in late 2007 on his fifth attempt, having spent the best part of 4 years in training up to that point. But he has thrown all of that away.

Elderly Drivers Update

I wrote a few days ago about a further brace of accidents involving old drivers. Interestingly, there is a further story connected with the incident involving 93-year old Jim Sims.

Before we start reaching for the Kleenex to mop up the tears over this sob story, let’s remind ourselves that Sims hit the gas instead of the brake at a T-junction, shot forward, narrowly missed a cyclist, crashed through a fence, and hit concrete bollards on a park green. Sims’ £22,000 1.8 litre Astra convertible was written off in the accident so it was hardly a minor scrape he had.He argues that he “passed” a Specsavers eye test, and yet he could not read a number plate at the legal 20.5 metre limit at the scene of the accident. And I know that if my foot slips off a pedal for any reason, it doesn’t press down hard and continuously on another!

But it would appear that the police are the ones who are at fault:

“There’s no justice,” [Sims] said…

“Fifty years I’ve been driving… down the M11 and the M25 north circular – and I have never had a scrape…

“All the police want to do is to stop me driving because I look old. They are trying to get me off the road…

“I’m a prisoner in my own home now. These four walls are a prison to me.

“Without that car I am lost. I have got a bus pass yes, but I have to walk around to the bus stop and I can’t do that.”

His son said:

It’s disgraceful. They didn’t have to crucify him but they did – they intimidated him.

Well, I’ve got news for Mr Sims and son. The way he drove 50 years ago is NOT a measure of how he drives now. At 93, he IS old, and it is highly likely that his foot “slipping off the brake” is intimately connected with that. In any individual’s case, there comes a point where sympathy and compassion has to be overtaken by common sense, and Jim Sims has just discovered that point.

It’s really frightening sometimes. I have a late-middle aged pupil whose eyesight worries me. I’ve already made him go to the opticians and get a new prescription, and yet his ability to read a number plate at 20.5 metres is still borderline. He can read it – I wouldn’t be teaching him otherwise – but add another metre or two and he can’t. This causes problems with him anticipating situations, because road signs are blurred to him until they are within his 20-25 metre range. That’s not very far when you are travelling at 60 or 70mph and need to take the next exit, and it says to me that 20.5 metres is nowhere near far enough for the roadside test.

This pupil is desperate for his licence, and in spite of my talks about monitoring his vision and not driving if it gets any worse, I know he will continue to drive no matter how bad his eyesight gets – and as I say, it has already deteriorated to the point where it is right on the limit. I shudder to think that he might still be driving in even 10 years time, let alone in 40!

Jim Sims has not been banned for life. Perhaps he should have been, and at 93 – which just emphasises the likely difference between driving now and driving 50 years ago – it is perhaps as good as a lifetime ban. But he has simply been told he must pass a driving test if he wants to continue driving.

If Mr Sims is as good as he claims to be, then perhaps passing the test again will only keep him off the road for a few months, and by the end of summer he could be back behind the wheel – hopefully in something a bit smaller than a 1.8 litre pratmobile..

But somehow, I doubt it.

Elderly drivers have simply got to accept that the chances of their skills declining dramatically overnight are far greater than the same thing happening to a younger driver, simply because of their age. Being old is a risk in itself in many aspects of daily life, and especially so when operating moving equipment. It doesn’t matter what younger drivers (or any other drivers) “do” on the roads. What matters is why they do it, and simply being unable to cut it due to reaching 80- or 90-plus is a distinct situation with proven dangers.

Tailgating And Middle Lane Hogging: Another Update

This one made me laugh. Nottingham City Council plans to get in on the act when the new careless driving laws come into force in July by having a mobile camera travel around trying to catch drivers in the act.

The article begins:

Road hogs, tailgaters, and those who perform U-turns on roads without warning put others at risk through their poor driving.

U-turns without warning? Perhaps the council has realised that its idiotic approach to road works and road closures is so frustrating to motorists that there is money to be had if it can therefore catch them trying to find alternative routes.

If it really wanted to make some money out of dangerous U-turns and other inconsiderate behaviour, all it would have to do is track every taxi in the city. They’d collect enough money to pay off the National Debt inside six weeks.

Nottingham City Council needs to get its priorities straight and sort out the mess it has caused by sanctioning unlimited road works first, before it starts trying to twist the knife further into the ribs of the motorist.