An email alert from the DSA advises people who have their tests booked May 10 to attend as normal.
PCS – the union involved – is obviously still determined to show the public what a bunch of prats it really is, whilst remaining under the impression that people are still mentally stuck in the Dark Ages with it, and are actually impressed by the idea of a strike.
As I’ve said before, not all examiners are in the union, and not all those who are get involved in strike action anyway.
If you’re worried, rearrange your test.
Why are the DSA on strike on May 10?
It isn’t specifically the DSA who are striking. It is various government bodies who are refusing to accept the government’s pension offer. Pensions are the latest tool in the armoury of those who prefer striking to working for a living.
The union involved claims it wants the government to “come to the negotiating table”. In plain English, this just means that they will not be happy until they get exactly what THEY want.
It isn’t just PCS either. The police are complaining about their pensions and are organising demonstrations. Unions involved cover the civil service, universities, schools, colleges, and the NHS.
The government has already made improved offers as a result of last year’s strikes, but as the union says, “these are not enough”. They demand a “fair settlement”. As I say, this amounts to EVERYTHING they are demanding, and nothing less will do.
Don’t forget that the tanker drivers are complaining about similar issues, which prompted the panic buying fiasco a few weeks ago. Pensions is the current hot topic.
Sometimes, people will go to great lengths to apply punitive measures which are purely designed to get something that THEY want – usually at the expense of denying something to others.
I was at the test centre the other day and saw this letter pinned up on the noticeboard. This is the full text:
Dear Sir or Madam/Driving Standards Agency Representative
Appeal for Increased Community Sensitivity and Consideration from Driving Instructors and Driving Examiners
I am the local Neighbourhood Action Officer and I am writing on behalf of Nottingham City Council, Leen Valley Ward Councillors and local residents who live in the roads frequently used by Driving Examiners and Driving Instructors around of by Robins Wood Test Centre. I have been facilitating public meetings in this area, which are chaired by local councillors and are designed to enable residents to raise issues of concern and share ideas for improving the neighbourhood.
A serious and consistent issue has been brought up at meetings concerning the way Driving Examiners and Driving Instructors behave on the streets surrounding the test centre. I am requesting your help to reduce the impact of this problem.
The issues that have been raised are:
Litter thrown from cars
Parking in places which obscure visibility, cause obstruction and increase the risk of road accidents
Remaining stationery (sic) for long periods with the engine running in particular outside the bungalow at [number deleted] Prestwood Drive. A lady who lives in this bungalow has a serious lung condition which she believes is greatly worsened by the car fumes that come into her bungalow and she is unable to open her windows because of this.
I would like Driving Examiners and Instructors to be made aware of the stress their behaviour is causing the local community. We appreciate that everyone on the road was a learner once and we fully recognise the need for such valuable resource for the city, but if it is possible for Driving Examiners and Instructors to alter their routes a bit to ensure disruption to local residents is spread about a wider area this would mean a lot to the surrounding community.
We also request that Driving Examiners and Instructors support us by parking in places which are safe to do so and do not obstruct visibility, and by not dropping litter out of their cars. If it is possible to turn your engines off if you are stationery (sic) for a while this would be greatly appreciated. In particular if cars could refrain from using the corner find a range of different corners to use this would huge improve the quality of life of lady with lung problems.
I have been to the Test Centre on Chalfont Drive and made them aware of the situation and requested their co-operation, but if there is anything you can do to help in addition to this, I would be most grateful. If you would like to chat through any suggestions you might have to help the situation please get in touch, whichever way is best for you. Whatever you feel you can or cannot contribute I would appreciate a reply to this letter and look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully
Have you ever read such emotive or libellous nonsense?
Although I use Chalfont Drive Test Centre, I can honestly say I have never used the corner referred to on Prestwood Drive. The road isn’t that quiet, and for as long as I can remember there has been a bloody notice up in the test centre waiting room asking people not to use Prestwood Drive because of residents’ complaints (probably, ONE resident in particular, judging from this). I honestly can’t recall seeing any other instructor using it because of the nature of the road – the test centre is about ¼ mile down and there is a school opposite. On weekdays it’s too busy.
In any neighbourhood you always get one habitual complainer and since modern councils are staffed by weak-minded idiots, they end up spending a disproportionate amount of their time and money involving themselves in things that simply aren’t worth the effort, but which tick all the necessary politically correct boxes.
The junction in question is shown below. Note the school to the left and Prestwood Drive to the right.
With all due respect to “the lady” who has complained, if car fumes are affecting her lung condition – and I seriously doubt that – the effect will be a thousand times worse as a result of the mummies and daddies who park dangerously outside the school for hours at a time when they come to pick up their little darlings (the school “specialises in the dramatic arts”, so you can imagine the mummy-o-meter being off the scale most of the time). It’s horrendous down there most of the day, and not from learners. The specific complaint here is against learners – not car fumes – and it is part of a concerted attempt by someone to get their own way (the notice at the test centre being part of the campaign).
That leads on to the other ridiculous accusation about dangerous parking and increasing the risk of accidents. The standard of driving around that area is appalling, and it is NOT learners who are to blame. The only direct effect you could attribute to learners is that their mere presence makes the average jackass who lives around there (or who goes to pick up the next generation of Big Brother applicant from that school) drive even more dangerously than usual.
And as for “dropping litter”: someone should take the stupid idiot who wrote the letter to court over that. It’s just libel, and spawned by old dears who want learners – all except their grandchildren, obviously – banned from the roads.
Using me as an example, this is how it works. I’ve already said I don’t use Prestwood Drive (and never have). I do use Aspley Park Drive a couple of times a week. I do use the retirement bungalow estate between Beechdale Road and Wigman Road a couple of times a week (several roads on there are subject to “please don’t” notices in the test centre, and I avoid those). I do use areas in Bramcote a several times a week. I do use lots of other areas, too. I travel as far as Bingham to do manoeuvres – even with pupils who will do their tests at Chalfont Drive – because I can take in different road types. I use industrial estates all over the city (see Punitive Pettiness #2) in the evenings when they’re not in use. And so it goes on.
The bottom line is that if some Neighbourhood Watch Official, just out of college and with a shiny new NVQ in Local Government Affairs, decides to take a single road out of context with all of what I do, then I am suddenly a Criminal against The Community.
The author of that letter is very naive if she thinks moving the problem elsewhere will solve anything. She’s also even more naive if the can’t see that it is just a handful of chronic whingers she is siding with. If she satisfies all of them, there are plenty more ready to crawl out of the woodwork on every street in the county.
It’s worth bumping this one to the top of the pile, as it seems that the new-model Fords have speedometers that aren’t completely visible from the passenger seat (the previous model wasn’t much better).
Note: As of April 2013, this app doesn’t work under Android Jellybean.
Note: It appears that it was updated shortly after I wrote the above note, and it works under Jellybean as of October 2013.
The speedometer in my Focus isn’t always completely visible from the passenger seat when I’m on a lesson. The pupil’s hand might be in the way, for example, and this – combined with the cowling over the speedometer – can sometimes be a problem.
Instructors usually get a feel for the speed their car is doing, and can tell by the sound of the engine and just the general momentum whether a pupil is going too fast or not in relation to the speed limit. But sometimes you just need to be able to see what speed they are doing.
To be honest, when we come over the brow of a hill and there is a mobile speed camera sitting there, the last thing I want is to be leaning over saying “what’s the speed limit here?” and miss the damned thing. It hasn’t happened before, and I don’t want it to in future, either!
I’m sure certain pedants out there will be outraged at this admission, Stuff them! Any decent instructor will know that pupils DO go over the speed limit sometimes, and having a full-on Client-centred Discussion (with yoga thrown in) about it isn’t really appropriate right in front of a Gatso!
So, I found this brilliant little app for my HTC Sensation XE. It’s called SpeedView, and there is a free version as well as a pro edition.
It uses the phone’s GPS to give a real-time readout of your speed.
It has a compass, altimeter, accelerometer, and various stats and recording functions. You can export the records as GPX files if you want to.
It works in the car or on foot/on bike. And it is very accurate.
I tried a couple of other speedo apps that came up when I searched the Android Market, but they were absolute rubbish (the primary function of one of them was to crash when you tried to run it). But this one was way down the list – but it is easily the best one I have seen. I tried the free version (with ads on the main screen), but I liked it so much having trialled it all today that I have upgraded to the pro version (it only costs £1.50).
Highly recommended.
I don’t use it quite so much as I used to. When I first decided to upgrade my old Focus it was a little unnerving not being able to see the dials. But you get used to it – although some pupils make it worth switching SpeedView on from time to time.
I forgot to post this one up. The April edition of Despatch is now available.
Topics this month include a bit about how more driving test candidates are to benefit from better local services, ADI renewals, some information about changes to the driving licence rules, and a few general snippets.
anywhere you would prevent access for Emergency Services
at or near a bus or tram stop or taxi rank
on the approach to a level crossing or tramway crossing
opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space
near the brow of a hill or hump bridge
opposite a traffic island or (if this would cause an obstruction) another parked vehicle
where you would force other traffic to enter a tram lane
where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users and powered mobility vehicles
in front of an entrance to a property
on a bend
where you would obstruct cyclists’ use of cycle facilities
except when forced to do so by stationary traffic.
Read all the rules about waiting and parking (238-252)
Again, it’s a good idea to circulate this information – far too many people (especially the mummies during school runs and 99.9% of taxi drivers) ignore the rules completely.
Two stories which complement each other beautifully in the news today.
Firstly, there is this one about a 74-year old woman who has passed her test after 58 years. To be fair, it seems that when she began learning back in 1954 she never actually took the test and only started learning again over the last year or so. She passed on her third attempt (which is not bad for a lot of people – whatever their age).
Then there is this story about a woman who was knocked down in a car park by an 87-year old man, who was subsequently found guilty of driving without due care and attention, given 6 points, and fined £550 with £700 costs. He was not banned or ordered to take a re-test. It seems that the old man accelerated into the woman he hit.
It seems that in court, the driver admitted he didn’t see the woman.
A spokeswoman for the Association of British Insurers (ABI) said insurance premiums start climbing once drivers reach 75 because of the increasing risk from deteriorating eyesight, using the car less and slower reactions.
Now, there is nothing to say the lady in the first story is a poor driver, but you have to wonder how long that can last for when you keep seeing stories like the second one – and ones like this one (Cassie’s Law still needs signatures, so make sure you sign it).
A very interesting article in The Times. It reports on a cab firm owner in London, John Griffin, who has really upset the greenies down his way.
Before I pass my own opinion, I think we can safely assume that the guy is being taken out of context as far as is humanly possible without actually accusing him of saying things he didn’t actually say.
You can read his original article in “add lib” (the magazine it’s from) here, but this is the exact text:
Green party candidates and others are up in arms about what they see as the murder of Cyclists on London Roads.
There has, as we all know, been a tremendous upsurge in cycling and cycling shops. This summer the roads will be thick with bicycles. These cyclists are throwing themselves onto some of the most congested spaces in the world. They leap onto a vehicle which offers them no protection except a padded plastic hat.
Should a motorist fail to observe a granny wobbling to avoid a pothole or a rain drain, then he is guilty of failing to anticipate that this was somebody on her maiden voyage into the abyss. The fact is he just didn’t see her and however cautious, caring or alert he is, the influx of beginner cyclists is going to lead to an overall increase in accidents involving cyclists.
The rest of us occupying this roadspace have had to undergo extensive training. We are sitting inside a protected space with impact bars and air bags and paying extortionate amounts of taxes on our vehicle purchase, parking, servicing, insurance and road tax.
It is time for us to say to cyclists, ‘You want to join our gang, get trained and pay up’.
It isn’t a very long article, really. So let’s look at what he says.
Yes, the Green Brigade HAS been up in arms. Yes, there HAS been a huge increase in cycling participation and yes, the roads ARE thick with them. Yes, London DOES have some of the busiest roads in the world and yes, people who buy bikes DO go straight out without a thought either for themselves or anyone else.
Yes, if a motorist is hit effectively hit by one of these idiots – and the idiot subsequently injured or killed – the motorist is almost certainly going to find himself with points or a ban. And that’s only if he’s lucky.
Yes, drivers DO have to undergo training and yes, we DO have to pay for that training, road and other taxes, insurance, parking, repairs, and so on.
And yes, a cyclist has to do none of these things. Yes, they ought to have to.
So Mr Griffin hasn’t really said anything that’s particularly controversial. It only becomes controversial when you convince yourself he’s somehow said it’s all right to “murder cyclists” when, in actual fact, it seems that it was the Green Party who brought up that pathetic phrase in the first place to try and force its own doctrine on the majority.
I would also add that cyclists can freely choose to ignore cycle lanes in favour of the busy road, and they usually do (it’s always either the fat, middle-aged ones who think they’re athletes, or the horrid, spindly Spandex Brigade who almost invariably have personality problems).
There is not one single word in John Griffin’s article which is incorrect. He is totally, utterly right in every way.
Cyclists – in general – are an absolute menace. Not because they’re cyclists, but because they haven’t got a clue about road safety as it relates to them. I’ve mentioned them several times in the last few years because it is always this time of year they come out en masse (they can’t be THAT serious if they wait until it’s sunny).
It is the en masse crowd who are often the main problem. There are too many of them, they always use the most dangerous roads, and they simply haven’t got a clue.
Yes, they have every right. But they also have every right to expect a higher risk of accident if they insist on riding two abreast on single track roads with zigzag bends, not giving way to anyone or anything (that seemed to disappear from their Highway Code donkey’s years ago), riding on to pedestrian crossings and the pavement to avoid traffic lights, ignoring traffic lights, not using purpose-built paths, and so on and on.
And if they’re going to use the roads, they should be taxed and insured like everyone else.
Obviously, my own experiences don’t relate specifically to London. But as we know, there are those for whom London is a magical place, full of pixies, gnomes, and other things that make them regard it as The Centre Of The Universe. In fact, London is a dangerous city full of ridiculously congested roads. And if it’s got a load of cyclists as well, then it’s a hundred times worse still!
If you want to see the view from a parallel universe (i.e. the one cyclists live in) take a look here.
You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right.
At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.
I think the DSA has started doing this as a way of trying to keep drivers’ knowledge up to date – which is a good thing, since most appear to have great difficulty doing it themselves, and have have had for many years (poor knowledge of the HC has always been a problem).
During rush hour, many people have difficulty in dealing with box junctions. Lorry drivers are one of the worst culprits. However, I honestly think most people simply don’t know they’re there – or only realise once they’re stopped in them (judging from the sheepish looks you get when they’re blocking you).
I noticed yet another argument about lesson prices on a forum. What always amuses me is how whenever one starts – and it is no exaggeration to say that you get at least one a fortnight, and they’re always frequented by the same people – they all behave like they’ve never talked or even thought about the subject before.
Let’s get a few things straight.
If you make introductory offers – offers which are totally unconnected to your normal price – that’s your business, and good luck to you. Just because you’re offering something as “buy one, get one free” doesn’t mean you’re giving that offer away all the time to existing customers. You’re dangling a baited hook in order to grab new people and show them how good your product is.
However, if you word your offer in such a way that it makes it look like you are also lower priced overall than everyone else, then you need to start thinking a little harder about how you’re going to avoid crashing and burning. Your “special offers” might snag a few people, but if the reality is that your price jumps dramatically at the end of a long block of cheap ones, you’re gong to lose a hell of a lot of them unless you also charge stupid normal hourly rates. Furthermore, by cheapening the entire industry with your ridiculous advertising, you’re also causing untold damage to it.
There is one cowboy-looking outfit (which appears to have originated somewhere in the North) advertising copiously on Google at the moment with a “10 lessons for £99” offer. Their website is purpose-built to hide the normal lesson price. However, they offer a 6-hour retest package at £150 (or £25 per hour). They also offer the same package but with a test thrown in for £225 (that means they’re charging you £75 for the test – the DSA only charges £62). You have to assume from this that their normal hourly lesson rate really is around the £20-£25 mark.
You see, there’s a world of difference between “first lesson free if you book 10” and “10 lessons for £99”. One of them you can offer to existing customers time and time again, it’s attractive to them, and it will keep you in business. The other is a guarantee that you are going to crash and burn at some point. You cannot expect people to accept a doubling in price after they’ve had 10 hours to accustom to the introductory price!
Offers which last over long periods are not deemed as “offers” by the people who take advantage of them. They come to accept the price as the norm, and that is detrimental to the comedian making the offer and everyone around him. HE won’t be able to climb out of the pit he’d dug for himself, and OTHERS will get pulled in.
Even if you use weasel-words to hide the price hike – perhaps by spacing the “cheap” lessons out over an entire course to try and force people to stay with you – there is the quality of the service you offer.
You can pretend you’re a great instructor until the cows come home, but if you’re trying to be one earning half as much as you could be doing, then the reality is that you’ll be a lot less “great” than you’d like to think.
It’s worth pointing out to the general public here that driving instructors DO NOT earn £25 an hour, even if that’s what they are charging for lessons. To start with, “£25 an hour” would only apply as a comparison with other salaries if the instructor was teaching for 40 hours a week. Most haven’t a cat in hell’s chance of doing that amount of work (it’s why they make stupid offers and drop prices), and are only working maybe 20 hours. Immediately, they are only making £12.50 an hour.
Even if we have an instructor who does work 30-40 hours most weeks, there is the travelling time to factor in. Add half an hour for every hour of lessons and you have the total amount of time the instructor is “at work”, if not actually “working”. Someone teaching for 40 hours could be out of the house for 60 hours or more. If you want to put a price on that dead time, it means our fully-booked instructor is really only making £17 an hour, given that he is out of the house for so long.
But that is nothing compared to business overheads. Any instructor who reckons they are paying less than about £100 a week just to keep a car on the road is a liar (at best, he is just not representative of the majority, who ARE paying at least that to maintain a car). Simply having the car sitting on the driveway costs £2.50 per hour based on a target 40 hour working week, but then you have to put fuel in it if you’re going to use the thing. If you do manage 40 hours of tuition, and if you’re doing a decent job of teaching, most normal cars will take around £200-£250 of fuel – or let’s say £5.50 per hour.
Even if you’re an instructor who reckons you’ve got a Magic Car which runs on Pixie-diesel, you’ll be spending at least £2-£3 per hour equivalent on a 40 hour week. Your £25 per hour turnover – already reduced to £17 per hour by the number of hours you have to stay out – is now down to £9 an hour.
So what you have to ask yourself is how you can finance a “10 lessons for £99” offer. What will you do if you have six pupils – maybe more – all taking the offer at the same time? And don’t forget that the comedians selling these offers WON’T be working 40 hours and WON’T be charging £25 an hour, so their equivalent hourly rate will already be much lower than £25.
Could someone really survive on what could effectively be as little as 90p per hour profit?
I think the answer is fairly obvious. So the next thing that happens is the ADI in question will try to cut his overheads, and the only one of those he can get at immediately is his fuel costs. In other words, lots of talking, little driving, and more lessons required by the pupil. You can see how it spirals downwards, can’t you?
Unfortunately, none of this is obvious to many ADIs out there – and I make no apologies for pointing out yet again that ADIs in general are certainly not renowned for being the brightest group of individuals on the planet.
By all means, make offers to attract business. But for God’s sake try to understand the effect that long-period offers deliberately designed to make you look cheap have both on yourself, and the industry as a whole.
And stop keep trying to justify it.
If you could charge £20-£25 an hour, but don’t, then you are an idiot and you’re deluding yourself if you think you’re doing anyone any favours.
This story from Canada reports that from tomorrow (Sunday), drivers in Quebec under/including the age of 21 face an immediate 3-month ban if they drive with ANY alcohol in their bloodstream. The limit for older drivers remains unchanged (it’s the same limit as in the UK).
According to the article, it means young drivers have to spend five years being completely sober if they drive.
New drivers in Quebec are already forbidden from drinking at age 16 with a learner’s permit, and for two years once they get their provisional. This change means that is now extended up to the age of 22.
The new rule also allows police to stop young drivers to test them.
Apparently, Ontario, Manitoba, and New Brunswick in Canada already have the same rule, where it has apparently been effective.
Some countries’ leaders definitely have more balls than ours do.
With all due respect to “the lady” who has complained, if car fumes are affecting her lung condition – and I seriously doubt that – the effect will be a thousand times worse as a result of the mummies and daddies who park dangerously outside the school for hours at a time when they come to pick up their little darlings (the school “specialises in the dramatic arts”, so you can imagine the mummy-o-meter being off the scale most of the time). It’s horrendous down there most of the day, and not from learners. The specific complaint here is against learners – not car fumes – and it is part of a concerted attempt by someone to get their own way (the notice at the test centre being part of the campaign).
Yes, the Green Brigade HAS been up in arms. Yes, there HAS been a huge increase in cycling participation and yes, the roads ARE thick with them. Yes, London DOES have some of the busiest roads in the world and yes, people who buy bikes DO go straight out without a thought either for themselves or anyone else.
never talked or even thought about the subject before.
l hourly lesson rate really is around the £20-£25 mark.
ur working week, but then you have to put fuel in it if you’re going to use the thing. If you do manage 40 hours of tuition, and if you’re doing a decent job of teaching, most normal cars will take around £200-£250 of fuel – or let’s say £5.50 per hour.