Category - ADI

Driving Is For Adults, Not For Children: I

These things are multiplying like fungus at the moment (link now dead) – another scheme aimed at encouraging children to want to drive cars before they’re physically and mentally developed enough to deal with it.

Pick of the quotes:

The Goodyear scheme teaches young people theoretical aspects of the Highway Code and practical road safety skills ahead of their 17th birthday when they can officially take their tests.

This suggests that by taking lessons before they’re 17 they can pass immediately they open their prezzies on the day. And this one from a 15-year old:

When in the car with my friends or family I might think about how difficult it is to drive and the rules they have to drive to. I’m really excited to take my test, pass and get a car.

I wonder if he (or those like him) will be able to contain their excitement until they can legally and safely drive?

Apparently, this is all down to some idiotic EU directive which, in turn appears to be seeded by some idiotic EU members who have minimum driving ages of 16 (with parents supervising). Those between 11 and 16 can take part.

Like the title says – and as I’ve stated more than once – driving is for adults, not for children. And I’ve added the “I” because I can see this one running and running.

Examiner Strike: 30 November 2012

Just moving this to the top – it’s tomorrow (Friday).

The PCS union fossils are at it again – another strike is planned for 30 November 2012.

The DSA has put out what has become a routine email advising candidates to attend their tests as normal. This is because not all examiners are stupid enough to be members of the union in the first place, and of those that are, they’re not all that stupid that they get involved in strike action.

EDIT 30/11/2012: I can’t believe people are searching for this today – the day of the strike!!!!!!

You need to contact your local test centre or – doing as they have already asked – turn up and hope for the best. You’re not going to get any useful information on the web this late.

No Smoking Signs In Cars

You have to smile sometimes.

Vehicles which are primarily used for business purposes by more than one person are legally obliged to display a No Smoking sign. A driving school car will almost certainly be primarily used for business, and by definition will have more than one person in it the vast majority of the time, meaning that it is used by more than one person.

A No Smoking sign costs £0.69 (not much – that price was correct when I wrote this). You only need one of them.

A solicitor who advertises online says:

All vehicles covered by the ban should display no-smoking signs, with the no-smoking symbol at least 70mm in diameter, in each compartment of the vehicle in which people can sit. The penalty for not displaying a sign is a fixed-penalty notice of £200, reduced to £150 if paid within 15 days, or a maximum fine of £1,000 if convicted by a court.

The company has a duty to prevent smoking in smoke free vehicles. The penalty for not doing this is a maximum fine of £2,500 on conviction. Compliance requires that the company take reasonable steps, which in addition to displaying signs as above might include…

There’s not a lot of verbal or literal clutter in there. It isn’t rocket science. Well, it shouldn’t be.

So it always amuses me when you see instructors trying to argue that their school car isn’t a company vehicle, isn’t used primarily for business, or just openly bragging at how they’re never, ever going to display one because it’s against their “rights”. Right on, brother! And for an encore, you could maybe do some stand up comedy for the (non-)amusement of your fellow leftie instructors.

As I say, a clear plastic sign (which peels off easily) costs 69 pence not much. You can stick it where your tax disc holder used to go, or anywhere else where it isn’t obstructing your view.

It’s a 69p cheap sign, for goodness sake!

Do I need a No Smoking sign in my school car?

Technically, you’re breaking the Law if you don’t. However, almost three years since the Law changed, you see loads of people smoking in their works vehicles, even when they have signs installed, so it clearly isn’t being enforced.

The Stupidest Idea Ever For Reducing Young Driver Accidents

Two stories came through in the feeds today and between them they present absolutely the most stupid and ill-conceived remedy for reducing accidents among young drivers.

Before I go on, let’s just remind ourselves that young drivers have accidents due to a combination of inexperience per se and simple biology. It’s an inalienable fact of life that you can’t become experienced in anything without passing through the realms of inexperience first. It’s also an inalienable fact that the human brain isn’t fully mature until the age of around 25. And there’s bugger all anyone can do about either of those things.

But that doesn’t stop them trying.

First of all, Fleet Directory reports on statistics I have mentioned several times in the last few months – that although drivers in the age range 17-24 only account for an eighth of all road users, they are involved in a quarter of all serious or fatal accidents. And the solution to this is… start teaching them to drive cars from the age of 11.

Yes, you read that right. From the age of eleven!

In actual fact, it’s yet another carefully orchestrated publicity stunt – this time by SEAT. I reported back in February this year of a similar idiotic caper, championed by Quentin Willson, and others have also attempted to gain valuable advertising by pushing off-road lessons for toddlers and getting amateur journos to talk about it.

Fleet Directory claims that this is the only such scheme in the country – well, unless the story I reported on back in February is the same scheme, they’re completely wrong on that one! So you wonder how wrong they might also be in their gushing support.

Naturally, IAM is sticking its oar in and is filling its collective colostomy bag at the idea.

But as if 11 wasn’t young enough, this story from the Evening Express in Scotland reports that Aberdeen Council is looking to build a junior driving facility where they’d take people as young as three! Apparently, the “facility” would be available to pre-school clubs and primary schools.

IAM hasn’t latched on to that one yet, but I’m sure they’ll think it’s a spiffing idea.

What planet are these people on? In just the same way that giving sex education to primary school kids hasn’t cut teenage pregnancy – quite the opposite, having whetted their appetites – giving them driving lessons is fraught with similar problems.

When I mentioned that original scheme back in February I said that if you give a typical 11-year old the chance to drive a car, he isn’t likely to want to wait another 6 years until he can go for his licence. A 3-year old definitely won’t want to wait 14 years, and having been fed “grown-up” ideas to a brain that simply isn’t grown-up, he probably won’t.

Cars are for adults. We already have way too many of them on the roads as it is, and this idiotic scheme can only have one eventual outcome – reducing the minimum age for driving, and so artificially increasing the number of drivers out there.

As I mentioned above, the human brain doesn’t mature until around 25 years (and the modern male is 5 years behind that, anyway). While it is maturing, it needs gentle conditioning. It can’t be slammed into adult-overdrive just because of some bizarre moneymaking publicity event by people who don’t have a clue.

Elderly Maniacs – Something HAS To Be Done About Them

As you may know, I was pushing the Cassie’s Law e-petition while it was live. Cassie McCord was 16. She was killed in 2011 by an 87-year old driver who shouldn’t even have been allowed out unsupervised, let alone permitted to drive a car.

I’ve mentioned other examples of elderly drivers maiming or killing innocent people (you can read some of those in the links at the bottom of the Cassie story.

But two more have just come through. This one tells how a partially-sighted 87-year old, Peter Cole, killed another pensioner after driving into him. Following his arrest:

  • He could only read a car number plate from 7.75 metres, instead of the required 20 metres
  • After the crash he was seen trying to use his mobile phone using glasses and a magnifying glass, and had to hold the phone very close to his face
  • SpecSavers had strongly advised him as far back as 2009 not to drive anymore
  • A year later he told SpecSavers he didn’t drive anymore
  • He had applied for licences in 2004, 2007, and 2010 stating that he had no medical conditions relevant to them being granted
  • He was driving using a 10-inch piece of concrete to help him with the pedals
  • He had declined the option of cataract surgery

Fortunately, this idiot has been jailed for 18 months. His victim wasn’t so lucky and won’t get a second chance though. It’s all very well “being remorseful”, but he still killed someone through his own selfishness and stupidity.

This other story tells how a 90-year old mowed down a 24-year old pedestrian on a pavement, causing her to lose part of her leg. He was trying to do a u-turn when his built-up shoe got caught between the accelerator and brake and he shot on to the pavement at more than 20mph.

This one has got away with a £2,500 fine and a two year ban, though the judge has extended it indefinitely on the grounds that William Peto’s age and infirmity “render him a danger to the public”.

Many people of this age simply should not be on the roads in the first place. I know that will upset a lot of people out there, but it’s a simple fact. Far too many bleeding hearts put “mobility” above safety.

The Old Ones Are The Best!

I just saw someone trot out the old “earn 30k” accusation against RED driving school.

RED hasn’t advertised using that strapline since it went bust and was taken over several years ago. It’s website clearly says “earn up to £500 a week” – which would equate to a maximum of £26,000 even if you ignored the “up to” part.

Driving instructors really should stay away from stand up comedy. They simply aren’t very good at it, especially when too much bile gets in the way!

Footnote: It seems that facts don’t get in the way of the bile, either! As I say, RED hasn’t advertised like that for years. It is now a totally separate company to the one that used to do the “30k” ads, with only the name having been preserved.

Banned Drivers Aged 11 And 12

This story is covered by various newspapers today, and reveals that out of 5,333 under-age drivers gaining convictions before they have a licence, five were aged 11 and 41 were aged 12.

At least one of the 12-year olds has received a life ban for aggravated vehicle theft and failing to provide a specimen for alcohol testing.

You can imagine the sort of person this little prat must be – but you can even more easily imagine what pond-scum his parents must be. The same goes for the parents of all the others.

And they think that this sort of behaviour can be addressed by driving instructors…!

RED Doesn’t Know What It’s Talking About

EDIT: I’ve changed the title to one that Red might not want showing up as No. 1 on my Popular Posts list on the left! I’ve noticed that this post has been deliberately forced to stay at the top by someone keep visiting it for several days, even though it is a pretty mundane story in itself. I suspect someone is after a bit of free advertising. (As soon as I did that, the visits stopped. Odd, eh?)

RED driving school has apparently “released” some “research” – but I really think someone needs to explain to them what “research” actually is in truly scientific terms.

As I’ve mentioned in several recent posts, it is Road Safety Week, and every organisation and his dog is anxious to climb aboard the band wagon and get some valuable publicity out of it. Some are making a better job of it than others.

Let’s just state some facts, here. Young drivers make up about 12% of the driving population, but they account for 33% of road fatalities. It is difficult to get positive spin out of that, no matter how much of a youth worker you think you are.

RED’s “research” amounts to a questionnaire put to 500 young drivers – quite possibly ones taught by RED instructors. The outcome is that a third (and that’s ONLY a third) think they have fewer bad habits than their parents and drive more in accordance with the Highway Code.

RED is clearly aided and abetted in mangling any statistics that might be involved by Kent Online, who have turned it into the banner headline: Young drivers `more careful than parents’.

To start with, that’s not what the “research” found. Having fewer bad habits and knowing more about the Highway Code does not make you a “more careful” driver. You get that label by having fewer accidents – and the fact I quoted above about road fatalities is far more significant in that respect.

And one-third of respondents answering one way is NOT a majority. It means that two-thirds – a sizable majority – DON’T think they are safer than their parents or know more about the Highway Code! This is obviously the correct interpretation of the “research”, and not the one RED or Kent Online is waffling about.

Ian McIntosh, CEO of RED Driving School said: “We thought it was important to ask young drivers, both learners and newly qualified, about their thoughts on how well they drive.”

Why? The only thing you’re going to show is how wrong they are. And you succeeded. He continues:

“It’s good to see that young drivers are confident in their driving ability and believe that, because they’re going through or have recently been through the driving tuition and test procedure, they’re better placed to drive safely and competently.”

He is on a different planet here. Confidence is what gets them into near-death situations in the first place. It is lack of experience that is the problem – yet he is obviously at pains to suggest they’ve had good tuition. Tuition is not the issue. But I like this part:

“We know that, overall, young drivers have a higher tendency to drive less safely…”

Well, that’s not what you or Kent Online has just tried to report, is it? You’ve just clouded the issue, which will make any changes to the law or testing system even more difficult to progress.

Teenage Yob Crashes Into House

Yet another case of a 17-year old who thinks he knows more than the rest of the human race – but who in actual fact was found to be sadly deficient in every possible area.

The teenage twat cannot be named for legal reasons. He was driving without a licence and without insurance. He failed to stop at the scene of an accident. It happened in Bucknall, Staffordshire.

The report says that he drove the car at high-speed, stalling about six times, drove on the wrong side of the road, and then crashed into a house (which was occupied).

He’s ben found guilty of dangerous driving – so the law seems to have worked. But the little prat has been granted unconditional bail until sentencing on 3 December. Oh, and he’s been banned from driving.

He should have been locked up to try to scare the crap out of him, because let’s face facts here: he isn’t going to get locked up on 3 December.

All the farting about trying to argue that driving instructors should be dealing with this sort of behaviour becomes laughable. This teenage moron probably isn’t taking lessons, and even if he was there is absolutely nothing an instructor can do to reverse such biological stupidity.

Warwickshire Police Advise On Flood Driving

Good advice from the Warwickshire Police in this article in the Leamington Spa Courier.

Basically, when driving through puddles and flooded roads which are still passable:

  • drive slowly and steadily
  • use first gear
  • use higher revs and slip the clutch
  • leave a large gap between you and the car in front

Water splashing on to electrical components in the car could cause it to cut out, so keeping the engine revving whilst slipping the clutch to keep speed low can avoid this risk. A large gap allows you to take evasive action if the car in front stops.

Most people will know what it’s like when you dive into a swimming pool and land flat. It hurts. Well, driving your car too fast into water has the same effect, on top of which you will create a wave which could soak the engine. It’ll cause you to slow down and the engine could stall – so don’t try and barge through. It just won’t work.

If a sign tells you a road is closed, don’t be a prat and try and get through. It’s closed for a reason.

And don’t immediately accelerate once you’ve gone through water. Test your brakes.