Well done to Mike, who passed today with just 2 driver faults. Now he can visit his friends in London without the hassle.
It was his second attempt – he should have passed first time (one of those people you’d not be surprised at coming away with a clean sheet) but for one mistake – but he’s been one of the best learners I’ve had recently, so I was confident he could do it.
He should be on the road by the end of the day! That’s what I like to see.
Well, the temperature dropped below10°C a few times over a couple of days, and a bit of snow fell in the south. And we all know what that means, kiddies…
It’s the Annual Winter Tyre Argument.
This year it seems to have taken a lightly sinister turn – or rather, it has got nasty right from the get go instead of dragging on for about four months, and then getting nasty.
Some of the forums frequently bemoan the dearth of new posters and, in some cases, any posters at all. Their administrators try to explain it away as apathy, or maybe provide some other convoluted explanation which could easily form the plot of another Harry Potter book if J K Rowling ever decided to go back to that series. But what they continually fail to understand is that it is the “characters” (i.e. the regulars) with their “strong views” (i.e. arrogance) who are the main problem. The lurking non-posters even tell them this, yet they still ignore it, probably because it would mean losing one of their few remaining contributors and – in far too many cases – someone they know.
Blatant advertising, for example, will often get a new member banned immediately. But the “regulars” are at it all the time (some of them only ever post anyway when it’s time for a bit of publicity). Heck, the main reason any newly-qualified ADI joins forums and associations is to get their name about, so stopping them from doing it merely because they’re not yet in the clique is just stupid. Let’s face facts here, if a new ADI joins a forum, gets lambasted for asking an “obvious” question or wrist-slapped by the moderators for “advertising”, is it any surprise they don’t participate ever again on that particular forum? (Edit: And another one is doing it now! A playground spat on one site, carried over to snidey remarks on the other. I hope his misguided belief that forum moderators often aren’t the most objective people to appeal to doesn’t come as too much of a disappointment when he finds out).
Back to the Great Winter Tyre Yawn, though. One poster with “strong views” has made their usual absolute statement on another forum about winter tyres – and then continued to push it (the sinister turn I mentioned). Clearly, this is going to rub those who hold a different view the wrong way. and it does – several other people have disagreed with him both on the matter of winter tyres and on his insulting and forceful way of pushing it this year.
That poster has now made himself feel a lot better by dragging the subject – and I mean the part after it got sinister and personal – across to the other forum (the one in its death throes) and into a 2-day old thread which probably wouldn’t have got any more responses. And they wonder why people don’t post anymore when you have these “regulars” using the forums for their own petty purposes.
On the winter tyres topic, as I’ve said before: you don’t have to have winter tyres. In some cases, in some areas, at some times, some people might benefit from them. But that doesn’t mean everyone will.
We’ve managed quite well without them for many years – just as we’ve managed without huge 4x4s, other all-terrain vehicles, and snowploughs across 95% of the population, and that’s in spite of them being available for much of that time.
Trying to persuade people to switch to winter tyres is like trying to persuade an atheist that God exists, or vice versa.
Footnote: The same argument raged last year, and the year before that. Last winter was extremely mild and we had little snow or conditions which would have at least put up a good argument in favour of fitting winter tyres.
Instructors are always going on about teaching people safe driving for life. Maybe they should remember that the average person they teach is probably going to run their tyres almost bald to avoid the cost of new ones, so expecting them to fit winter tyres as an extra each year is unrealistic.
The false sense of security that fitting winter tyres might create among inexperienced drivers as a result of listening to over-enthusiastic converts who already have them on the tuition vehicle is worth considering.
The petition is now closed. It made 20,002 signatures in the end – an obvious sign that there is something that needs to be done about dangerous elderly drivers.
Unfortunately, it fell short of the 100,000 needed to get it debated in parliament, although by exceeding 10,000 it should get a comment. Ironically, a petition about the West Coast Franchise debacle has nearly 200,000! One about beer duty has over 100,000! Others of ridiculously low significance also have a disproportionate number.
As I’ve said before – and in the words of Kent Brockman – democracy simply doesn’t work.
Fortunately, as this story reveals, Cassie’s Law WILL be passed (sort of).
I saw this story in the newsfeeds. The original story from last year is here.
Cassie McCord was 16, and a student in Colchester. In February last year, she was hit – as she walked on the pavement – by an 87-year old driver. She died from her injuries later.
The driver, Colin Horsfall, had already been warned by police to stop driving after he went into the EXIT of a garage and ran into trees.
He failed an on-the-spot eye check during this particular incident, but refused to surrender his licence. Police have no powers to ban people immediately. Unbelievably, this happened just three days before he killed Cassie, so she’d obviously still have been alive today if Horsfall had been forcibly removed from the roads.
A verdict of unlawful killing was returned. Horsfall was injured in the incident and died – apparently from his injuries – several months later. This was recorded as accidental death. So, as well as deliberately continuing to drive when he was clearly completely incapable of doing so safely, he was also never brought to task over Cassie’s death.
Cassie’s mother, Jackie, has set up an e-petition asking that police be given the power to temporarily suspend drivers in such circumstances. It has the backing of the police, who also suggest that they should be allowed to confiscate vehicles as well. I fully agree. People like Colin Horsfall are absolute menaces. Horsfall was by no means unique.
You can view the petition and sign it here (or click the image). I urge everyone to do so – getting these types of dangerous drivers off the roads permanently is one of the best things the government could do.
EDIT: Note this story, too. An elderly driver killed an innocent motorist as a result of being unfit to drive through age .
And note this story where another elderly driver also got on the wrong side of the road and collided with two other cars.
And this one, where an elderly driver with defective eyesight injured a cyclist.
Someone found the blog on the search term “is not looking over your shoulder a serious fault [on your] driving test?” I’ve written about it before in various topics, particularly the one where I explain the driving test report sheet. However, maybe a specific article is a good idea.
You won’t automatically fail for not looking over your shoulder – but you almost certainly will if you don’t look and someone is there.
If you don’t look and no one is coming it will probably get marked down as a driver fault (often referred to as a “minor” fault). But if you keep doing it it will be obvious to the examiner that you have a problem and it will end up being converted to a serious fault (marked in the “S” column on the test report).
If you don’t look and someone is coming – and you obviously haven’t seen them – then it will probably be marked as a serious fault (S).
If you don’t see someone and cause them to slow down in any way then it will be marked at least as a serious fault (S) and quite possibly a dangerous one (in the D column).
You are not allowed any S or D faults.
The final decision is the examiner’s, and I can only advise on what they are likely to do in any normal situation. Just remember that there is almost no excuse for missing someone who is approaching from behind when you intend to move off, and even less excuse for pulling out in front of them, so there’s no point trying to argue the toss.
In rare cases a situation might arise that the examiner decides the new driver couldn’t reasonably be expected to have handled differently and they may be generous – but as I say, these are rare cases, and much depends on how you reacted – did you stop or did you keep going, for example? After all, if you’re expecting to be driving around with your mates tomorrow you need to be able to deal with just about anything safely.
The latest DSA Highway Code advice – this one is about driving in fog:
When driving in fog you should:
- use your lights as required
- keep a safe distance behind the vehicle in front. Rear lights can give a false sense of security
- be able to pull up well within the distance you can see clearly. This is particularly important on motorways and dual carriageways, as vehicles are travelling faster
- use your windscreen wipers and demisters
- beware of other drivers not using headlights
- not accelerate to get away from a vehicle which is too close behind you
- check your mirrors before you slow down. Then use your brakes so that your brake lights warn drivers behind you that you are slowing down
- stop in the correct position at a junction with limited visibility and listen for traffic. When you are sure it is safe to emerge, do so positively and do not hesitate in a position that puts you directly in the path of approaching vehicles.
Rule 235
A reminder from the DSA on general driving procedures:
Before moving off you should:
- use all mirrors to check the road is clear
- look round to check the blind spots (the areas you are unable to see in the mirrors)
- signal if necessary before moving out
- look round for a final check
Move off only when it is safe to do so.
Rule 159
Not doing a blindspot check over your right shoulder before moving off is one of the most common causes of failing your driving test. It’s also one of the easiest ways of annoying the hell out of other drivers.
Only bad drivers fail to check properly before moving off.
The blindspot check isn’t just for the test – it’s for life!
This is a very old story. DSA is now DVSA.
This story came in on the newsfeeds. It reports that ex-driving examiner (he’s an “ex” because of the case), Richard Cwierzona, took bribes from candidates in exchange for test passes.
He also attempted to obtain “dates” from female pupils in exchange for test passes. One woman claimed that he offered to pass her in return for oral sex.
Police believe that there could be “hundreds of illegal drivers” on the roads as a result of his actions. However, only 57 people with suspicious results could be traced. The DSA revoked 39 of those and apparently sacked him when his actions were discovered.
Cwierzona apparently made at least £4,500 in bribes between September 2009 and September 2010, at which point he was sacked. But it seems that this had been going on since 2002. He was suspended in 2007 for offering to take a bribe, but as it was his word against the candidate and her driving instructor he was reinstated in 2009 (you can imagine union involvement in there somewhere judging from the time span).
Cwierzona was jailed for two and a half years.
Andy Rice of the DSA said:
Fortunately these cases are very few and far between but I am pleased with the sentence as it acts as a deterrant (sic) to anybody else thinking of acting this way in the future.
The DSA is as disgusted as anyone else – but I notice that there are some people – instructors included – out there already trying to twist it otherwise with their racist twist on the subject.
You’d be surprised how many people find this site as a result of Google queries on how to bribe examiners. It should be pointed out, however, that several of Cwierzona’s victims – it was always Cwierzona who initiated the offer – refused.
The DSA has sent out one of its periodic advice emails. This one concerns roundabouts.
When reaching the roundabout you should:
- give priority to traffic approaching from your right, unless directed otherwise by signs, road markings or traffic lights
- check whether road markings allow you to enter the roundabout without giving way. If so, proceed, but still look to the right before joining
- watch out for all other road users already on the roundabout; be aware they may not be signalling correctly or at all
- look forward before moving off to make sure traffic in front has moved off
Rule 185
I’ve given a lot of advice on how to handle roundabouts, including the non-existent 12 o’clock rule and also the Nuthall roundabout in Nottingham, and one of the main points to be aware of is that they’re not all the same and you cannot apply the exact same detailed procedure to every one you ever encounter, particularly when it comes to lane choice and signalling.
The DSA’s advice is written in a level of detail (i.e. not too much) so that it applies to all roundabouts for all normal drivers.
Once again, the amateur Sherlock Holmes’ out there (all driving instructors, obviously) are waffling on about the picture of that green car turning right and being shown in the right-hand lane – even though the green arrows show that it can exit in either lane (which it can).
What they all miss is the fact that the roundabout in the picture has two lanes on every entry, and this defines two lanes on the roundabout itself. It would be far more risky for anyone turning right to change lanes on most roundabouts part way through, and especially so for learners and inexperienced drivers (of which there are far more than the average amateur Sherlock Holmes realises, and some of those are a lot closer to home than he thinks).
So the position of the green car in the right-hand exit lane is actually the safest option – unless you’re a super-duper advanced-driving expert who doesn’t need to follow road markings or use signals merely because you read it in Roadcraft once!
Addendum: If you don’t like receiving these DSA advice (or other) emails – which it appears some don’t – then there is an absolutely clear link on each one which says “Unsubscribe”. Subscribing to them in the first place required a very deliberate act on the part of the subscriber. It stands to reason that unless the DSA is employing psychics now, unsubscribing will also require a very deliberate counter action on the part of that same subscriber!
Of course, if you don’t get them sent to you anymore then there’ll be nothing to complain about in future…
This is an unusual one!
The DSA has sent out an alert advising that it is not possible to book a practical driving test either by phone or online due to the theft of cables at BT.
I am assuming that this means someone has stolen cables which connect the DSA to BTs services (like nicking lead off church roofs or copper cables at railway signal boxes).
The fault is estimated to be fixed by tomorrow (12 October 2012).
Update: A new alert advises that BT won’t fix the fault until 13 October 2012 (Saturday).
Update: A new alert advises systems are all back up as of 12 October 2012.
Note: Interesting to see that – in certain strata of our unfortunate society, at least – this was entirely the DSA’s fault.
The DSA has circulated an alert advising that the National Driver And Rider Training Standard document has been revised.
You can view the standard in PDF format here.
