Category - ADI

100-Year Old Still Driving

You can look at this story from two sides. One side – the cosy, mumsy side – makes you think “ahhh! That’s sweet”.

The other side – the one involving cold logic – makes you say “but she’s 100 years old!”

The lady in question, Susie Dixon, never had to take a driving test. Back when she was a girl there was no such thing as the driving test. But that’s not really relevant. Neither is the fact that she has never had an accident in all her time on the road.

The simple fact is, she’s a 100-year old person who, it can be guaranteed, will never be a 150-year old person. No matter how healthy she is for a 100-year old, she could just die or have her health deteriorate at any time, just like that. That starts to become a significant risk above 60 years, and it gets worse the older you get.

Miss Dixon has been given another 3 years before she needs another health check-up.

The way her family gush over how she can still remember things from when they were kids hints strongly at there being certain “little old lady” traits that aren’t being mentioned.

One son said: “She is fantastic for her age”.

Yes. She is certainly in a tiny, tiny minority. Most people her age cannot drive safely. No mention is made of how she drives – other than that she’s never had an accident.

Agent Smartphone

SmartphoneThis is an interesting story. Aviva, the insurance group, is trialling software that runs on your smartphone and which records how carefully you’re driving.

I’m sure it won’t be everyone’s cup of tea. After all, having this software running is likely to slow down the phone, making texting that little bit more difficult.

Seriously, though, the kind of people who it’s aimed at – the ones who ought to be permanently tagged for the whole of their lives – are unlikely to take the option.

The idea is not that much different to the smartbox technology being used by other insurers – except that it is likely to be much cheaper to implement, and (unless they have very strict rules about its recording patterns) much easier to switch off or bypass for that crucial pratmobile meet at McDonalds on Sunday night.

Have people never heard of having two pay-as-you-go phones?

Toffee-nosed Tosser?

An ex-public schoolboy – William Colebrook, 23 – has been arrested for driving at 113mph in a 50mph zone in Switzerland. He was taking part in an exclusive “rally” from Mayfair, London, to Verbier in the Swiss Alps.

He was driving an Audi R8, valued at £157,000. Entry to the “rally” is by invitation only, and costs £2,250 per head.

He demonstrated his maturity over the matter by tweeting:

Being delivered to the #DodgeballRally finish line by police car is pretty badass. Having to fly home is not…

I wonder what mummy and daddy think of him? I wonder if they care?

Cool dude, eh? In reality, an utter prick.

Useless And Inaccurate Award

I don’t want to take too much away from the driving school involved, but I find it hard to believe that a small firm in Bristol can be reliably considered as “third best driving school in the UK”.

Apparently, “tens of thousands” of people voted across the country (which has a population of 62 million), so even if those tens of thousands amounted to 99,999, they still only represent 0.16% of the population. I suspect we’re talking about the lower “tens” here, even so.

These opinion-based polls are notoriously unreliable and horrendously misleading – every year, the media ask people to vote for the Best Band Ever In All Recorded History, and you can guarantee that the worst pop and rap claptrap from the previous year comes up trumps. That’s purely down to the kind of people who vote.

Good luck to the school involved. It’s a nice certificate to have.

But I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on “third best in the UK”. That’s absolute nonsense, and would require every learner in the country from the last 5 years to vote for it to be even close to having any validity.

It’ll be interesting to see if any of the other local amateur newspapers jump on the first and second placed driving schools when they find out who they are.

Annual Statement Of The Bleeding Obvious – Contender #1

When I read this report, which says that using a smartphone while driving can be more The Bleeding Obvious Awards 2012dangerous than drinking alcohol or using cannabis, I slapped my head and thought what a fool I’d been for not realising this for myself after all these years.

Not.

Apparently, it needed “research” by some comedians calling themselves the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) in order for this hitherto “unknown” fact to come to light.

I wish they’d stop calling these things “studies” and “research”. They are neither – not by a long way. It’s just some old geezer with absolutely nothing better to do stating the bloody obvious after reading something in Time, Readers Digest, or Saga Magazine.

THEY might not have known it, but I would imagine that most of the higher primates did. Jeez, even my cat knew.

What makes it worse is that the Americans have been having hysterics over this very subject for the past 12 months, and have done most of the “research” themselves (it’s not so bad when Americans do it, because it’s only what you’d expect), so the IAM can hardly claim to have “discovered” anything.

Yes, arseing about with your radio, mobile phone, music collection, laptop, TV, toaster, microwave oven, building Lego models, solving the Rubik’s Cube, or any other activity which takes your attention off the road is dangerous and stupid. It always has been, and always will be.

It’s like saying that you mustn’t put your hand in a running Flymo – but only after “research” – and then pretending no one knew up until then that it was stupid and dangerous.

This is currently top contender for the 2012 Statement Of The Bleeding Obvious awards.

THINK! Biker

An email alert from the DSA mentions a £1.2m ad campaign by THINK! urging people to think and take care around motorcyclists.

Motorcyclists doing what you have a motorbike for in the first placeOne very important piece of missing advice is that motorcyclists also ought to take care and think – they’re often not entirely blameless for the scrapes they get into.

Weaving in an out of cars at traffic lights, almost invariably going either too fast for the conditions or speed limit, accelerating “just because you can”, and so on when you’re already a very fragile moving target isn’t the most intelligent way of behaving.

I am 100% behind the idea of motorists – or anyone on the roads – taking care around motorcyclists. I mean, I wouldn’t like to prang one, even if it wasn’t my fault.

However, I am not convinced that motorists should continue to be forced to shoulder quite so much of the responsibility. It is all too often the stupidity of the motorcyclist that’s the real underlying problem.

Perhaps THINK! should “think” about dealing with the problem at source, rather than keep trying to patch things up elsewhere?

Driving Instructor Fined – But Gets Off

From the Bournemouth Daily Echo via the newsfeeds, a driving instructor was “stunned” to get a £70 fine after his pupil stopped on the reverse round a corner exercise to let a car pass. The car turned out to be a Poole Council Camera Car.

Catalina DriveThe instructor claims his pupil was acting properly – and on the surface of it, that seems to be the case. However, the council mentions a bus stop in its version.

If you look up the road that the instructor was using via Google (Catalina Drive), you can clearly see that just in front of the corner apparently being used there IS indeed a bus stop (and yellow lines all around the bend). It would be necessary for the car to stop inside this bus stop bay in order to commence the manoeuvre – quite a long way inside if the manoeuvre was being done in usual learner fashion (i.e. 2-3 car lengths ahead of the bend).

Poole Council’s website – specifically its guidelines about issuing PCNs (penalty charge notices) – say:

CONTRAVENTION CODE: 47

Stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand

This code is used when a vehicle other than a bus parks in a restricted bus
stop. Only buses may stop in the marked area.

Coaches may also stop to pick up and set down passengers but not to park
awaiting passengers.

No loading/unloading is permitted.

The instructor in question can argue all he likes, and claim to know all the rules (which is exactly what he does), but the council’s rule is quite clear. If you stop in a bus stop area you are liable for a fine.

He is lucky that they got the road name wrong on his PCN – so he got off on a technicality. Otherwise, he would have had to pay or appeal.

I don’t have much time for council snooping, and in situations like this then maybe Poole Council ought to exercise a little more discretion, since a lot of motorists must get away with stopping for the few seconds it takes to turn around when the camera car isn’t around. But if they don’t show discretion, they don’t, simple as that. And people have to live with it.

The local PCN rules are crystal clear and the ADI obviously didn’t know them as well he he thought he did. Whatever city you live in, you need to make sure you know what the local council will allow, and what it will stamp on. For example, some will let you use bus lanes to get past cars which are turning right, whereas others will fine you instantly for doing the same.

It isn’t illegal to stop at a bus stop – but the Highway Code says you shouldn’t. PCNs are civil and not criminal affairs, in any case. And for those people who only like to quote part of the Highway Code, here’s the bit they keep forgetting (note the highlighted part):

240

You MUST NOT stop or park on:

  • the carriageway or the hard shoulder of a motorway except in an emergency (see Rule 270)
  • a pedestrian crossing, including the area marked by the zig-zag lines (see Rule 191)
  • a clearway (see ‘Traffic signs’)
  • taxi bays as indicated by upright signs and markings
  • an urban clearway within its hours of operation, even when a broken white line is on your side of the road, except to pick up or set down passengers (see ‘Traffic signs’)
  • a road marked with double white lines, except to pick up or set down passengers
  • a tram or cycle lane during its period of operation
  • a cycle track
  • red lines, in the case of specially designated ‘red routes’, unless otherwise indicated by signs

Any vehicle may enter a bus lane to stop, load or unload where this is not prohibited (see Rule 141).

This whole affair is between this ADI and Poole Council (and it’s enforcement policies) – was the bus stop in question “restricted”? There is no single nationwide answer.

But you have to ask: where’s the bus going to go if it turns up and there is a learner arseing about in the bay?

An ADI ought be able to work that one out for themselves.

CGI HPT – Impressive

An email alert has just come through from the DSA with a link to some early-stage computer generated imagery (CGI) clips they’re working on for the Hazard Perception Test (HPT).

I can see this one dragging the rats out of the sewers (at the time of writing, ten votes, three of them negative on the YouTube site).

The quality is very impressive.

Some of the negative comments seem to have completely overlooked the fact that these are EARLY-STAGE clips, and not the finished article. That’s why there’s no sound.

 

Clip #1

 

Clip #2

As the DSA says in the email:

The clips are early prototypes. DSA aims to bring these computer-generated clips into the theory test by the end of 2013. It means DSA can introduce hazards that would be hard to film safely – particularly those involving vulnerable road users.

It’s a brilliant idea. Just a shame that technology moves forward faster than the thinking of some ADIs.

Looking at some of the comments, one thing that is repeatedly overlooked by those who are anti-HPT from the outset and saying that it should be done in a real car is that it IS done in a real car – the HPT is only one small part of the training a learner receives, and much of that training IS in the car. It happens during their lessons!

Others are totally ignoring the fact that these are merely samples – very early samples, at that. The DSA is asking for feedback, and comments about overtaking the cyclist too close to a roundabout or not adhering to the 2 second rule are precisely the sort of feedback they want and need.

ADIs need to help make the clips better – not just poo-poo the whole idea. The level of reality is already quite stunning, and by the time they come into proper use I expect they’ll be better still.

But hey, I’m just too positive.

A Drop In Prospective ADIs?

I noticed someone was saying that there has been a “huge” drop in the number of people training to become ADIs.

Using the DSA’s new published statistics, the following can be gleaned from the number of people taking Part 2 tests:

Year Total Part 2 Tests
2007/08 16,185
2008/09 14,574
2009/10 14,942
2010/11 10,916

So, it would appear that the number was relatively flat between 2007 and 2010, but showed a drop of about 4,000 last year. However, it should be noted that the number of those passing the test only fell by about 2,000 between last year and the previous period (i.e. the success rate appears to be increasing).

For Part 3, there are only data available for the last two years:

Year Total Part 3 Tests
2009/10 10,581
2010/11 9,204

Here, there is a yearly difference of about 1,200 – but the total number of passes only fell by 344 – or around 3.5% from the previous period. You could argue that a greater percentage of people passing Part 2 ended up passing Part 3 last year, since the difference between Part 2 and Part 3 is much smaller for last year than it is for the previous year (i.e greater success rate). But there is insufficient data to conclude this with any certainty (it’s probably a contributory factor). In any case, the pass rate from the DSA data is flat.

The previous years were those covered by the “earn £30k, no qualifications needed” adverts. Last year was free of that, so it is also likely that the quality of those embarking upon training is now improving – hence the greater success rates if you look at the data overall.

When you also consider that 2011 was a terrible year as far as the economy was concerned, I don’t think you can say anything other than people were being careful how they spent their money.

And the other thing to remember is that – just like share prices – a fall is often followed by a rise. It might not be this year, as the fall in Part 2 tests is carried forward, but it’s pretty certain that there will be one at some stage.

So, Price Cutting IS Cutting Your Own Throat

This story came through yesterday. I nearly missed it, because it isn’t obviously related to driving or driving instruction – until you think about what it is saying.

It says that retail figures released by the Office for National Statistics confirm that discounting is the only factor driving sales at the moment, and consumers are reluctant to spend. It warns of another difficult year.

It doesn’t take a genius to work out that business overheads are covered by income from Price-cuttingsales, with the difference being business profit. It’s fairly obvious that if income from sales falls then so does profit – and it’s even more obvious that if the profit is negative, you’re going to go out of business very quickly.

Well, I say it’s obvious… but it’s clearly not as obvious as it should be to many driving instructors out there.

Even in my neck of the woods, where the typical hourly rate is £23 or £24 an hour, the number of cars you see with stupid prices plastered all over them is unbelievable. The British Retail Consortium in that link is certainly not wrong.

How do these instructors think they are ever going to be able to charge a sensible price again without losing work? After all, all these special offers are designed to fill empty diaries “until it picks up”. It’s debatable whether they actually do that in any case, but the more work you get the greater your overheads (fuel) become, and if you charge stupid prices you quickly run into trouble with your profits. Let’s look at an example.

Imagine an instructor charging £22 an hour, but with very little work – say, 10 hours a week. His car costs him £100, and the fuel for those 10 hours about £70. His income is £220, and his expenditure £170. His profit (wages) is therefore £50.

If that same instructor does a silly offer of “10 lessons for £99” and drops his price to £16 (like one I’ve seen recently), then if his diary suddenly rockets to 40 hours a week (which is highly unlikely) his profit will be somewhere in the region of £250.

If his diary only goes up to 20 hours – which is MUCH more likely – his profit will be in the region of £30. So by cutting his prices he is doing twice as much work for 40% less profit!

Even at 30 hours of work – the most many instructors can expect even under the best circumstances – his profit will only rise to around £160 for a tripling of the workload to a level where most people would simply conk out with exhaustion – particularly if they are new ADIs!

Of course, with such low profits you’ll inevitably want to cut your costs, and the one that drives profit most of all is the cost of fuel – which has already risen by 40% in the last three years, with the possibility of another 15% this year. So your attempts to not drive much on lessons will have pupils queuing up for the exit.

The price-cutters simply can’t see the damage they’re doing to themselves and others.

To make matters worse, they do it in the firm belief that when things pick up they can charge a sensible hourly rate again. But if you snagged your pupils with stupid prices, how are you ever going to expect to keep them if you hike prices by 40% again? It isn’t going to happen.

Price-cutting is simply business suicide.