ADI - Diary Of An ADI

And Another Thing About Roundabouts…

20/02/2012

Someone was asking why the Highway Code (HC) shows a car coming off in the right-hand lane when turning right.

Just to clarify, this is the picture the HC uses to explain roundabouts. Highway Code Roundabouts

It doesn’t show a car turning right (the green arrows) coming off JUST in the right-hand lane. It shows a car turning right using EITHER the left- or right-hand lanes.

It does not show a car merely using the right-hand lane to exit, nor does it advocate this as the preferred default. It is simply showing that you can use either/any of the lanes if there is more than one. It doesn’t say anything about “if it’s safe to do so”, because that should be taken as read.

That’s because on an unmarked roundabout where a single lane entry carriageway leads off to a multi-lane carriageway, this is exactly what you would do – if cars in the left-hand lane were going slower, for example, or perhaps if you were getting ready to turn right further on, then you would legitimately exit to another lane on that carriageway. I suspect that the complaint has something to do with learners and lane discipline – however, the HC is something learners are supposed to adhere to, not something that needs to be dumbed down for them

Of course, if you had multi-lane entrances to the roundabout, and/or road markings, then you’d use the appropriate lane suggested by the markings (the HC says that, too).

As I often have to explain to my pupils, there is the basic roundabout procedure – but road markings can change all that.

Another thing I see a lot of is instructors not teaching their pupils to drive properly, but forcing them to do everything in the left-hand lane – even when they NEED the right-hand lane almost immediately after some junction. They then have to indicate and change lanes, often causing others to slow down to let them in – which is just about OK on their tests if they do it properly, but a guaranteed fail if they don’t.

I teach mine to plan ahead. If you’re going to turn right, then right again 200m further on, bloody well get in the right-hand lane for the first turn so you don’t have to force everyone to stop 25m before the next one to let you in.

How NOT To Do Roundabouts (And Other Junctions)

19/02/2012

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, Training

Note that this is a very old post from 2012. As of 2022, I have a decent dashcam and – best of all – the Police accept online submissions of footage.

Today was one of those days. It started off with some idiot stopped completely on a mini-roundabout (they were giving way to traffic coming on to it). I was still in a good mood as far as other road users go at that point.

Then, not more than 40 minutes later, I was entering the Nottingham Knight roundabout in the ONLY lane for going straight ahead. The other two lanes are marked left-only – but that didn’t stop the prat in the green Mini Cooper (reg. no. K5 CKR) trying to use one of them to go ahead. I saw him/her swing in behind me, and then across to the inside lane (that’s the one for going right), and then cut back in again. You actually only need to use one lane to go straight ahead properly, but this prat used three – two of them incorrectly.

Later, driving to Long Eaton with a pupil, we were at the Bardill’s roundabout, going ahead down the A52. As the lights changed, this pillock in a silver estate car (reg. no. PN55 JJL) was in the inside lane (marked for turning left into Toton). As the lights changed, he shot forward and cut everybody up to move into the middle lane for straight ahead. He quickly swung out into the outside lane, but his rather excessive speed was curtailed by another car.

Then, driving into the City Centre with a pupil, we stopped at the lights on the other side of Lady Bay Bridge. We were in the middle lane behind a large transporter – unlike everyone else, who was piling into the right hand lane to try and get past the transporter, not considering the fact that he was there because he needed the turning circle. One or two managed to cut the transporter up, but not the dark Fiat Punto (reg. no. YH52 TZK), who got stuck behind, and who was even more put out when the transporter then signalled to move into his lane. The Punto wasn’t going to give way to anyone else, so he cut us up by moving across three lanes to get right into the left hand one. Of course, if he’d gone behind the transporter in the first place, like we did, he wouldn’t have had to ignore me at the next set of red lights as I used universal sign language to describe his mental capacity.

And finally today, driving through Mapperley, we were at one of the dozens of sets of traffic lights our illustrious council has decided to replace (even though there was nothing wrong with the old ones). In other words, there were fair-sized queues because of the temporary three-way lights standing in for the complete absence of any kind of workforce. The normal two lanes is down to one, and as we pulled up, one woman cut us up to make sure she got through first. I didn’t get her reg. no. – but the second one who tried it pissed me off – another young woman with a zit-faced youth in the passenger seat (blue Ford Ka, reg. no. X166 FLK).

On the one hand, when you’re teaching pupils how to do things properly, these people make a mockery of the Highway Code and give full justification for the huge insurance premiums young drivers have to pay.

On the other hand, having to share the road with such troglodytes can be used as an excellent teaching opportunity. It’s so predictable how people are going to drive, you can actually say “now, watch this car in front – he’s likely to cut in”.

And they do!

Seriously, though, I have a lot of conversations with pupils about the large number of full licence holders who simply can’t do roundabouts (and other things) properly. Even the ones who think they’re being clever (the young males, usually) are only hiding their inability to do things the right way.

Over Half Use DVLA’s Digital Services

18/02/2012

DOAADI

ADI, DSA, News, Transport

An email alert from the DSA says that more than half of all motorists use the DVLA’s digital services to tax their car or declare it off the road.

I was pleasantly surprised by this – but then I saw the bit about how “digital services” means online AND telephone services. I would imagine that the percentage using the actual “online” part is considerably less than the overall figure.

Still, Mike Penning finds a totally positive spin for the situation, claiming that more motorists want to deal with the DVLA at a time and place to suit them.

What exactly does he think they wanted previously? Or what does he think the other half want now? Do they want to deal with the DVLA at an extremely inconvenient time and place?

Maybe his daughter told him what to think, because Penning seems incapable of drawing logical conclusions out of anything for himself.

Young Drivers… VERY Young Drivers

17/02/2012

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, News, Training

I just saw a skit on BBC Breakfast about teaching young drivers – as young as 11 – to drive. It is an initiative which is being championed by Quentin Willson (yes, two “ells”; media motoring “expert”).

In the skit, an in-car camera recorded an 11-year old with a huge grin exclaiming:

How cool is this?

…as he drove a car around an off-road circuit. Just remember that, because I will. That 11-year old was driving a car and exclaimed:

“HOW COOL IS THIS?”

It doesn’t take a huge leap of the imagination to transport him – or someone his age – from a private compound near to London to an inner city street with a gang of his mates, taking a car that doesn’t belong to him. Or on a Road Wars video, trying to evade the police as they try and catch him.

I’ve known about this scheme for some time. To be honest, I have always known it for what it is – a brilliantly clever way of selling driving lessons at almost £60 an hour! That’s around three times the normal cost of an hour’s lesson.

In that respect, I have no axe to grind with the scheme. It’s a business ploy to sell driving lessons at a ridiculously inflated price, but it is still a fantastic Unique Selling Point (USP). In fact, it’s quite similar to Mercedes Benz’s idea of selling expensive lessons in expensive cars to Hooray Henrys and Henriettas (or their provincial counterparts) in terms of its business model.

However, Willson and that 11-year old have now taken it to the next level for me. The next level downwards. You see, Willson has spoken in Parliament on this topic. He says (indeed, has said – in front of Parliament):

I passionately believe that we don’t teach young drivers to actually drive, only to pass a test, and one that’s woefully inadequate.

This is complete bollocks, and Willson ought to understand what he is talking about before shooting his mouth or, or committing himself to it so “passionately” (the same goes for driving instructors who embrace this scheme merely because it is aimed at children). Passion is often a mask for blindness and ignorance. I’m also fairly certain Willson has some links with the school mentioned, because I read somewhere else that his own son had taken lessons with them. To that end, he adds:

One of the most important things this Committee could do is to consider a revolutionary new young driver programme where driving is part of the school syllabus, much like citizenship. Teaching kids to drive at 17 is at their least receptive age. Their mindsets are already corrupted and corroded by video games like Grand Theft Auto and the worst excesses of Top Gear.

Seeing as he is a former presenter of Top Gear, is he not guilty of peddling “excesses” to the teenage masses out there for his own profit? Does he not do that now in the Sunday newspapers, as he drools over the latest supercars that less than 1% of the population could ever afford?

What does this misguided individual think will happen when kids’ minds have been filled with the desire to drive a car (and the impression that getting one is only just around the corner), AND THEN get “corrupted” by Grand Theft Auto and the “excesses” of Top Gear? Basically, you’ll be teaching them how to drive the cars they will end up nicking – and increasing the likelihood of the theft in the first place by creating a desire!

Can he not realise that a juvenile mind is a juvenile mind. In the entire recorded history of the world – and into pre-history – a juvenile has been a juvenile, requiring nurturing and protection on the way to adulthood, making reckless decisions of its own along the way. Six years (until you’re 17 and legal) is a hundred lifetimes when you are 11, and after having been tempted with HOW COOL IS THIS? experiences, the 21st century kid simply isn’t prepared to wait any longer than necessary.

Too many kids don’t wait even now. Car theft is unfortunately a typical juvenile male pastime – certainly one which too easily occurs as a viable activity to kill time to modern youth – and this scheme will just make it worse. A thousand times worse.

In any case, 17-year olds have a job remembering what they learnt for the Theory Test only two weeks earlier – I’m sure as hell that an 11-year old (even if he does wait 6 years) isn’t going to remember anything useful from pre-teen driving lessons once the testosterone kicks in and he hits 17. Even worse, he’ll probably THINK he knows everything – and what 17-year old doesn’t know it all already?

They will not wait! They will want to drive now. Those fools who start gushing that we should “pleeeeease think of the children” are totally ignorant of the likely consequences of teaching some things at too young an age. Teach them about sex at primary school, and you have an increase in teenage pregnancy. Teaching them to want a car – and want one badly – is not going to turn out any differently.

The real problem on the roads is illustrated by that thing I mentioned about kids not being prepared to wait. These days, they DON’T wait. They’ve been allowed to develop into ungovernable little savages (even the ones from Chelsea, Kensington, and those begat by TV presenters with inflated opinions about themselves).

All of this is a fault of the parents, who spoil their offspring with expensive treats – like driving lessons at 11, or in fancy cars.

Kids used to be taught road safety as part of cycling proficiency. But in just the same way that the Three Rs have fallen by the wayside (and kids are pretty stupid as a result), is it any wonder they have no sense on the roads? Willson’s plan isn’t addressing the problem – it’s just papering over the cracks, and badly.

Road safety definitely ought to be part of the curriculum. Driving cars shouldn’t be. It’s for adults, not 11-year olds. And if anything is going to change, it should be the minimum age at which people can drive, because many 17-year olds are still of the “hang-around-outside-the-chip-shop-causing-trouble” mentality – but in cars instead of on BMX bikes.

Incidentally, I love the Statement of the Blindingly Obvious from the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) that lack of driving experience – not age – is the reason why young drivers have crashes. But it also conveniently ignores the biggest problem: attitude.

The problem is far bigger and much deeper than people like Willson, the IAM, and all the bleeding-heart-children-come-first clowns are capable of recognising.

“Pay As You Go” Insurance

16/02/2012

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, News

It’s interesting how certain individuals, groups, and organisations can dig the most bizarre meanings out of simple and honest facts if it fits in with their warped agendas.

I saw this article in the newsfeeds from This is Money, about what they call “pay as you drive” insurance. They refer specifically to the AA’s Drivesafe Box, which I commented on recently, pointing out that everyone who gets one starts off on 50 points, and this goes up or down depending on how fast you go, how sharply you turn corners, and so on.

They then add:

But drivers living in areas where there are many winding roads — such as the countryside — will have to work harder to keep a good score, as insurers view these areas as more risky.

That is total speculation. Technology is a lot smarter than many journalists – something many journalists appear to be blissfully unaware of.

But it isn’t from This is Money’s mouth that this rubbish originates. It is the ~~Countryside Alliance~~ [broken link] – that group “representing the countryside” – which advocates, among other things, the legalisation of tearing foxes apart with hounds for the perverted pleasures of country types, shooting anything that moves, using whippets to tear rabbits apart “to control them”, the defence of its members who illegally kill Hen Harriers (a bird of prey) because the Harrier kills Grouse (which they farm to shoot), and so on.

One can only guess at their take on Hare Coursing and Badger Baiting to “control” the populations of those particular animals.

I also seem to remember that they took up graffiti – painting slogans across roads and stuff – when the original fox-hunting ban was being pushed through. They certainly stuck a huge number of their flyers up illegally on traffic signs (you still see some of them around). And they are not particularly vocal about the blatant violation of that law by hunts around the country whose members still get their sexual kicks out of chasing and killing foxes.

So, on this current matter, they say that it is unfair to penalise people for living in rural areas!

…we are also concerned that rural roads can be tricky to drive, so this device should recognise and not penalise rural drivers unfairly.

It doesn’t. It won’t. It penalises people for driving like pillocks – you could spend 100% of your time on rural roads and still get a good rating out of the thing, even without having to change anything.

It seems like these village idiots have got it into their heads that the AA’s device, which monitors how you turn corners (among other things), actually penalises you for going round them. What it does is give you a black mark if you try and go round them on two wheels!

Now, if the Countryside Alliance’s members are wont to drive that badly – speeding and such like (which of course, we all know they aren’t) – then they deserve to pay higher insurance. But they aren’t going to get penalised just for driving on country roads or going round corners. And while we’re on the subject, I don’t recall the Countryside Alliance throwing a hissy fit over the Co-op’s Smartbox, which uses the same technology.

Mind you, assuming they have been quoted in context, the AA hasn’t helped itself – the article doesn’t quote them directly, but says that the AA “concedes rural dwellers could pay more.” I suspect there was much more to that in the interview.

These devices are aimed at boy racers. Just because they might also happen to be young farmers doesn’t make them immune to the effects of juvenile testosterone.

AA Launches “Drivesafe Box”

16/02/2012

DOAADI

ADI

WARNING: Very old post and out of date.

I saw this article on ~~motoring.co.uk~~ (dead link), which announces that the AA is launching a device called the “Drivesafe Box” to help young drivers.

Apparently, the box is about the size of a pack of playing cards, according to the piece, and it records the speed, types of roads travelled, time of day, and so on. The owner of the car can then log on to a website and monitor how they are performing.

The AA says that most people can improve their driving and the Drivesafe Box can help them to do it.

The device also provides crash, theft, and breakdown alerts, and the AA says parents will be interested in these features.

The story is a little confusing, because the Drivesafe appears to be very similar to the ~~Co-op’s Smartbox~~ (which they don’t do anymore), which is specifically designed to lower insurance premiums through the Co-op. However, although the AA spokesperson is director of AA Insurance, there is no specific mention of reduced premiums from the AA – but at the end of the article they say…

The new AA Drivesafe will identify the safest drivers and reward them.

They – that is, motoring.co.uk – really ought to clear that up, but either way it is an excellent application of technology. Until these things are mandatory for all new drivers, though. they’re always going to seem a little gimmicky – but that’s not to take anything away from either the Drivesafe or the Smartbox. I think they’re brilliant.

When I searched the AA’s site, ~~it is clear that having a box fitted~~ (link also no longer correct) IS part of a reduced insurance premiums plan.

As I said, a great idea. It HAS to be made mandatory.

The Highway Code (Book)

15/02/2012

DOAADI

ADI, Driving Tests, Training

Recently, I’ve been appalled by the knowledge of the Highway Code exhibited by my pupils – after having passed the Theory Test, and being only weeks away from their practical tests in some cases.

It was highlighted during the snow we had. I’d used the opportunity to cover skidding and the importance of planning ahead, but not one pupil was able to tell me what kind of clearance they should leave between themselves and the car in front in normal conditions, let alone in the wet or on ice.

Answers included two metres, two car lengths, and even two feet! And the one who said “two feet” has failed his test five times already (not with me, I should point out), and he gave that answer when I asked what he’d do at 70mph on the motorway!

Since the snow cleared, I’ve been mentioning this to most of my pupils, and it is frighteningly clear that the problem is not isolated.

To be fair to them, they wouldn’t actually drive two feet (or two metres) behind the car in front. All of them can maintain a safe distance, but it’s when questioned the guessing starts.

You see, if someone is able to maintain a safe distance in practice, does it really matter if – when questioned – they don’t recall the Two Second Rule verbatim, or can’t declare that the gap should be at least two seconds?

At the moment, I (the jury) is out on that one! Just.

However, if they can’t recall the Two Second Rule, how many other things can’t they remember? Road signs, for example, or how and where to park next to junctions, etc? So part of me is still of the mind that they should bloody well know this stuff (or at least some of it).

From now on, I’m going to keep a supply of Highway Code (HC) books and give them out as I see fit. The RRP of the HC is £2.50, which isn’t a lot – but give away 40 of the things in a year and you’ve lost £100. Surprisingly, even the bulk suppliers are asking £2 a copy.

But I got an email through from Amazon today, and it reminded me of the fact that the Official HC only costs £1.49 on there (and delivery is free). You can only order a maximum of five, and it appears you can only have open orders to that maximum number at any one time. I’ll be a bit annoyed if it turns out I can’t buy any more once my order arrives, but we’ll see.

Warrington Driving Tests

14/02/2012

DOAADI

ADI, DSA, News

I mentioned this initially in April last year, then again in June. Now, it seems, the trials are ~~due to begin~~.

The article says that the DSA is to “reintroduce” tests to Warrington – the test centre it used to have closed down in 2008. The article also adds that it is on a “temporary basis”. It says they will run from Paddington House Hotel from March. Then it says they will run from the Orford Community Hub from June. It doesn’t mention any of the previous stories which said this was going to happen.

So what it ought to say is that Warrington is being used to trial the idea of running tests from flexible venues, as suggested 12 months ago. The first part of the trial will run from March, and the second from June.

The trial is being run in various places throughout the country – though this damages the political impact of implying that it is only Warrington, and is therefore only mentioned in passing.

According to the article:

This comes after the Department for Transport recently announced changes to the driving theory test that mean pre-published questions are no longer being used.

If anyone can see the relevance of that statement, please send your answers on a postcard to the usual address.

Bid To End Fraudulent Whiplash Claims

14/02/2012

DOAADI

ADI, News

I think I’ve mentioned this problem somewhere previously, but our ineffective prime minister will “today pledge to end” the compensation frenzy that accompanies even near misses, these days.

I’ve fallen foul of such a false claim before. Those most likely to do it come from the dirtiest, scummiest, most desperate reaches of our society.

But they wouldn’t be able to do it without help and encouragement from another dirty and scummy part of our society – and I’m talking about the personal injury lawyers who advertise on TV and radio (and in the media generally). They’re only doing it to line their own pockets, as they apparently get paid £1,200 for even the smallest successful claim. This means that they put in as many claims as they can (you can see why they have those sharks on TV urging people to claim fraudulently), as most judges will award in favour of the claimant. Apparently, around 1,500 such claims are submitted every day – almost in line with the number of daily personal injury adverts on the TV and radio.

Doctors aren’t blameless, either. All you have to do is go and see your GP, say you were in a car crash and that your neck hurts, and that’s it: you’ve got whiplash, and you’re well on your way to getting a few hundred quid off some innocent motorist.

Over 90% of these small claims are completely fraudulent, based on lies, desperation, and incompetence. Desperation and lies from the claimant and his lawyers, incompetence from the doctor who didn’t check the injury claims properly.

As a result, insurance is 20% higher than it was before the claims became common.

According to the article, Britain is the whiplash capital of Europe, and people claim for even the most minor of bumps.

However, I am not sure what they can do. The article states that whiplash is almost impossible to disprove.

Meanwhile, if Cameron wanted to do anything other than lip sync to pre-recorded soundtracks, he would have actually done something over a year ago when he got into No. 10. These claims have done massive harm to the economy – and continue to do so.

It doesn’t need “pledges”. It needs someone to get off their arse and do something. Now. That way, people like the scammers I just saw on ITV3 offering a free iPad if you make a claim can be shut down for good.

Smoking Pot Increases Crash Risk

14/02/2012

DOAADI

ADI, News

The Los Angeles Times appears to be trying to compete for the Statement of the Blindingly Obvious Awards this year.

It reports on a study, which concludes that people who smoke pot within a few hours of driving are nearly twice as likely to have an accident than those who are not high. How big a surprise is that, then?

Mind you, the study – carried out by Dalhousie University, in Canada – has been published in the British Medical Journal.

I wonder how much you get paid for these studies? Because I’m thinking of doing one on why people these days keep stating the bloody obvious as though no one has ever thought of it before.

Category - ADI