Category - Driving Tests

ITV Tonight Programme: 13/12/2012

Interesting programme on TV right now (available on ITV Player for the usual limited time).

They’re looking at possible changes to the driving test and post-test privileges. They’ve mentioned the statistics I’ve given here on several occasions, and the analysis given by some of the experts is exactly what I’ve been saying since I started the blog: that many young drivers think they know it all, but the fact is that they do not have the experience.

The programme is also giving airtime to that idiotic scheme where Young Drivers (as young as 11, in fact) are “taught” to drive. And they’ve shot themselves (well, the scheme, at any rate) in both feet by interviewing an 11-year old who now thinks he can drive, and says so confidently! Again, this is exactly the problem with this scheme – the only ones who benefit are the people who run it and charge premium prices to parents with too much money and too little sense. As I’ve said many times before, driving is for adults – not for children!

They’re also looking at “black box” schemes, which I have mentioned on previous occasions, as well as graduated licences, and the curfews – also covered here.

To try and make the programme more interesting they recruited three new, young drivers and “put them to the test” with an IAM observer (and remember that these people are just members of the public who think they’re good drivers and so join an organisation so they can tell everyone how great they are – they’re generally not proper instructors). They tested them on parallel parking – I’m not quite sure why, since parallel parking isn’t the reason young drivers have fatal crashes. The IAM observer reckoned they should have been able to do it with only having to turn to the left, then the right, with no adjustment – which is rubbish, since they don’t need to do it perfectly to pass their tests, nor do they have to do it perfectly in real life. Then they took them on a skidpan and two of them skidded (shock, horror!). Anyone who goes on a skidpan is guaranteed to skid the moment they do because that’s what they’re for. And then they did a night drive, and the girl misjudged a right turn and blew the front tyre on the kerb at speed. The IAM guy should have intervened, as this was extremely dangerous – except that I don’t think he was even aware of what was going to happen. They could both have been killed, yet he didn’t try and stop it – I’d even go so far as to say he wasn’t qualified to stop it.

To be honest, I find it insulting that IAM keeps implying that learners aren’t taught these things as standard when it’s own observers are clearly out of touch with real world driving and driving instruction. They are not instructors (well, some are, but that’s only because they decided they wanted an extra anorak). The only thing that my pupils don’t get to do is drive on the motorway, and even then I get them on the closest thing possible and do a long drive at 70mph. We cover country roads and night driving – and we drive on snow and ice in winter as long as they’re not beginners. IAM should get its facts straight for once and point out that even new drivers who have experienced those conditions don’t have the experience and can still have accidents. It’s because they lack experience. The IAM observer was completely out of his depth an all fronts on this programme.

The show didn’t conclude anything. It was merely presenting what I’ve covered on this blog over recent months because the information is freely available.

All that we have to wait for now is the number of pupils who will have seen it and so will conclude that the test IS changing and will want to know when.

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.

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.

New Driver Restrictions – Update

The London Evening Standard has its own story on the proposed restrictions for new drivers.

Its says that three-quarters of the public think new drivers should face restrictions after passing their tests. Three quarters also agreed that there should be restrictions on carrying passengers.

Over half believe that there should be a minimum 12-month learning period before they can take their driving test., and similar numbers support a late-night curfew and think the driving test itself should change.

Nearly half of all 17-year old males have accidents within their first six months of driving.

Meanwhile, the bleeding hearts out there continue to oppose the suggestions as being unenforceable, and as being detrimental to the lifestyles of the little darlings whose lifestyles are such that they want to go out and kill themselves in their cars.

This ITV link gives some useful information linking to a variety of sources.

Radical Changes To Driving Test Demanded

This hot story from the news feeds says that insurers are tomorrow going to demand radical changes to the driving test as accident statistics reveal the risks posed by rural roads.

Insurers are demanding:

  • six month ban on carrying passengers after test
  • 11pm to 4am curfew
  • retest after 2-year probationary period

Insurers are meeting ministers this week to discuss road safety. As the report states, any reduction in accidents will bring down insurance premiums.

The report also states that the public supports change, with 76% agreeing some driver restrictions are needed. Obviously, that 76% doesn’t consist of any ADIs if what you read on the forums is anything to go by. The typical ADI is programmed to follow the “if-I-didn’t-think-of-it-then-it’s-a-crap-idea model.

Proposals for change already face an uphill struggle with people like this on the case. This woman’s “expertise” appears to derive from the fact that she was disabled in a car accident nine years ago (and that she’s a paralympian). Somehow, this gives her the insight necessary to claim that imposing restrictions on young drivers will prevent them getting the experience they need to become better drivers. She admits in this interview with Channel 4 that she was a “stereotypical” new driver, driving home from a party with a car full of friends.

She misses the point completely, having fired her gun in the exact opposite direction to the target! Like her, they are having accidents. But do they all need to keep having crashes and maiming themselves in order to “gain experience”?

And the AA also stoked the flames of opposition by claiming restrictions would be “impractical” and hard to police. They reckon more extensive driver training is the answer. Quite how they imagine “more extensive training” is to be policed is open to guesses.

I’m not singling out the AA here, but what we have is group after group after group trying to stake its claim on the road safety map with totally opposing views to each other. Actually cutting accident statistics comes in way behind just talking about it.

Young people have most accidents on rural roads at night, on bends, with a car full of passengers, with no other car involved. This is a simple fact. They are not taught to drive recklessly by their instructors, but they do drive recklessly through their own choices.

“More extensive training” will not change that! Not one iota.

Absolutely nothing so far has managed to control the way young drivers drive. All the namby-pamby stuff about coaching them in their lifestyle choices is like trying to knock down a wall with a feather. It hasn’t happened. It isn’t going to happen.

The time has come to just put a complete manual stop to the main causes of accidents – bravado, inexperience, and distraction (i.e. attitude). By all The largest road in Mallaig, Scotlandmeans try and deal with those issues separately, but you simply can’t let the carnage continue while every New Age initiative in the meantime fails miserably to change those attitudes.

However, the AA does have a valid point – a separate, and well-concealed point – when you consider this report in The Scotsman. It’s part of the same clutch of ABI (Association of British Insurers) press releases ahead of their week in the spotlight. The Scottish story explains that most accidents occur in the rural north east of the country. It tries to explain this away as being due to affluent drivers in fast cars and the rural location per se. What it doesn’t touch upon is the limited amount of driving learners in such areas are going to be asked to do prior to and during their tests.

I’ve reported before that test centres in these extreme rural locations have some of the highest driving test pass rates in the UK. They also have some of the fewest roads to drive on (the picture above shows the largest road in Mallaig, whose test centre has the highest pass rate in the UK). Laughably, instructors in these areas have suggested that it’s because they’re better trainers than those in dense urban areas with much lower pass rates (and high numbers of immigrants and cash-strapped people desperate to pass without paying for lessons). I wonder how they explain the high accident rates?

Everything in the Scottish story points to inexperience again. If you learn to drive and pass your test in an area with perhaps 10km of available road then you’re getting even less experience than those in more expansive areas – and we already know that they are often still inexperienced when it comes to driving on their own (because of perhaps only being taught test routes).

To be fair to Mallaig, it isn’t mentioned in the latest stats for accidents, but it is tucked away in a sparsely populated region. The data in the Scottish report relate to higher population density locations within these rural locations.

The problems all come down to inexperience and immature attitude. Forcing new drivers to take it easy for 6 months, then get re-tested after two years (that’s not going to happen in a million years), would be a great way of giving them vital experience. Increasing the minimum driving age would also help (especially for young males, who are frequently mentally aged 13-15 when their real age is 17. Stuff their “liberties”. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Can You Practice Bay Parking At Colwick MPTC?

NO!

Someone found the blog on that search term. The test centre manager has had to put up signs telling instructors not to use the car park, because they were too stupid to understand the effect they were having on people who were on their tests. It wasn’t until the results of several tests were influenced by them getting in the way that he was forced to take action.

Even now, some instructors are so unbelievably thick that they still turn up to practice – and the reason is because they’re so bad at their jobs they can’t teach the manoeuvre anywhere else.

You do not need to practice the manoeuvre in there. I never have, and not one of my pupils has ever failed on the bay park exercise if they’ve got it on their test.

If you’re a learner and your ADI tries to take you in there, find another instructor quickly – one who actually knows what they’re doing! There are loads of car parks you can use – many of them much quieter (and some busier) than the test centre one when people are coming and going for test.

Just think how you’d feel if you were asked to bay park on your test, and some half-wit of an ADI turned up with a pupil to prat about in the car park right next to you. Well, think of that before you do it to someone else.

If I see anyone practising when I’m in the waiting room I report them in writing. School name, phone number, car registration.

Test Pass: 12/11/2012

TickWell done Callie, who passed today first time with 10 driver faults – and who has beaten her brother, who began lessons before she did. I like a bit of sibling rivalry!

She’s a nice driver who plans to buy her own car as soon as possible. Like many of my past pupils, she has also been a pleasure to teach for the duration. Looking back, she only began driving in August, so she hasn’t been with me all that long come to think of it.

Moving Off Safely – Looking Over Your Shoulder

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.

Test Pass: 19/10/2012

TickWell done Kelly, who passed today with 6 driver faults (first time with me, second time overall). The pass certificate will come as a nice engagement present.

I was a little worried when they were out for nearly 50 minutes – but even driving examiners can’t avoid those bloody roadworks the idiots in charge of Nottingham City Council are allowing to spring up everywhere, but only allowing work to proceed for a maximum of 4 hours a day (plus not weekends and when the weather is nasty).