An email alert from the DSA announces that from April next year, the Check Test will be changing to operate to the guidelines in the National Standard For Driver And Rider Training document. The new system will also require that people conduct a real lesson with a real pupil – no role play option.
As you can imagine, out in Instructor Land this has set the cat among the pigeons – and that’s before they’ve even cottoned on to the fact that this is where client-centred learning (CCL) comes into it. I’m also dying to see how those instructors who miraculously cannot conjure up a pupil to coincide with their Check Test (and yet who are always apparently fully booked in between times) get round the “no role-play” issue.
An email alert from the DSA, covering Pedestrian Crossings.
Rule 196
Pelican crossings. These are signal-controlled crossings where flashing amber follows the red ‘Stop’ light. You MUST stop when the red light shows.
When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution.
Remember that “must” in red means you are breaking the Law if you don’t.
Vision. You MUST be able to read a vehicle number plate, in good daylight, from a distance of 20 metres (or 20.5 metres where the old style number plate is used).
If you need to wear glasses (or contact lenses) to do this, you MUST wear them at all times while driving.
The police have the power to require a driver to undertake an eyesight test.
Remember that anything in the HC which says “MUST ” in red is supported by Law. You’re breaking the Law if you ignore it.
Or to give it its full title: Roadcraft: The Police Driver’s Handbook.
Anyone who has a copy of this should occasionally turn around and make sure they haven’t let reality slip out of their sight.
Some elements of the book can be useful when teaching, but this is NOT the case most of the time, and definitely NOT for every pupil.
Roadcraft has been jumped on by the “I Am An Advanced Driver” brigade as some sort of bible.
I again refer to its official title as a Police Driver’s handbook. This is clearly written on the cover. Furthermore, the foreword is written by ACPO and the Police Foundation. I don’t really see what else is needed to convince ADIs that this is NOT a learner syllabus.
It was written for the police. Period.
Much of what it contains would be dangerous if an inexperienced person tried to use it. Inexperience means – by definition – that existing underlying skills are undeveloped, whereas Roadcraft assumes that its readers have these necessary skills. It cannot possibly make that assumption correctly of readers outside the realms of the police force.
An email alert advises that the CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) check is now known as the DBS (Disclosure and Barring Service) check. Read more here.
Note that this link applies to England and Wales only – it’s a different process in Scotland and Northern Ireland (links for those are in the link above).
Note that ADIs are required to get one of these – the enhanced one – each time they renew their licence, and one is required to become a PDI.
How do I know if my DBS check is OK?
When it comes back, if it doesn’t say anything about you being wanted by Interpol or any other authority, you’re probably good to go.
It’s best if it is completely “blank” (like mine is). If there is ANYTHING in ANY of the sections – and especially if it is related to driving, drugs, violence, or children – you’ll need to check with DVSA to see if it’s a problem. It could be, and even if it isn’t, it probably should be – DVSA is dumbing down at the moment and you might get lucky even if you are still stealing cars and engaging in high-speed police pursuits (as the “pursuiee”) for a living.
You won’t find the answer on the internet, so don’t go spending any money on training until you have been accepted on to the Register.
I heard someone recently criticising their pupils’ education because they sometimes got their lefts and rights mixed up.
I encounter left-right confusion frequently when I’m teaching, but never – for even a moment – have I attributed it to the standard of someone’s education. In fact, it is a known – but not completely understood – scientific phenomenon (it’s also one of the symptoms of dyslexia, though not necessarily one experienced by all dyslexics).
Kids are taught their lefts and rights from the earliest age, and when they turn 17 – unless they’re dyslexic and this is one of their symptoms – they know exactly where left and right are.
Indeed, when I was a child I had no problem at all with telling left from right, or in being able to identify one or the other instantly, and I don’t have a problem now. But for about 4 or 5 years in my late teens and early 20s I went through a phase where I often had to think hard about which was which when challenged to do so for some reason. As a typical teenager, it really had me worried because I knew there was an issue where there wasn’t one before. But it disappeared as suddenly as I’d noticed it appear. In later years I have always attributed it to the changes that occur as people mature physically. I am not dyslexic in any way, either.
The problem, as distinct from dyslexia, apparently affects around 20-25% of the population. Even if you leave out my own theory of it affecting young people more than older ones, that still means a quarter of your pupils are likely to encounter difficulties.
It can be a particular problem on driving lessons and driving tests. Why? Well, if someone is just driving to Tesco or to see their gran, they usually know where they’re going and don’t need to think about right or left – it’s just “this way” or “that way”. But on lessons and tests directional instructions are given, and the driver then has to translate “left” or “right” into real actions. That’s when the left-right confusion kicks in.
The one thing to remember is that no matter how badly someone is affected by this left-right confusion, it is not terminal as far as learning to drive is concerned.
There are all kinds of things the instructor can do or advise to try to help them. Here are just a few:
When you hold your left thumb and forefinger out straight, they make an ‘L’ shape
Draw a big dot on the left hand remember that that’s LEFT
Actually write ‘L’ and ‘R’ on your hands
Put ‘L’ and ‘R’ stickers on the dashboard (or the mirror)
The ADI can use gestures as well as the words ‘left’ and ‘right’ when giving directions
The examiner can do this, too, so ask them to use a hand gesture if you think it will help on your test
Stay calm and take your time when making decisions
Some of those are also advised by the British Dyslexia Association. The mirror one came from a reader.
But one thing you should never do is assume that the person in question is somehow lacking or deficient – educationally or any other way.
Left/right confusion in older people
Someone found the blog on that search term. I am not aware of a specific problem developing as people get older (that is, as they pass from their 20s to their 30s or 40s). However, confusion and slower mental response can occur when people become much older (60s and 70s onwards), and I guess left/right confusion may be one of the possible symptoms of that.
Bear in mind that some 30-somethings can be mentally older than some octogenarians, and there are no sharp divisions. Everyone is different.
If it is becoming an issue that worries you, see your GP. That’s what they’re there for. It’s unlikely, but there may be something else wrong that can be treated.
Another story from the newsfeeds. It involves IAM – but I won’t diss it outright since just for once they haven’t tried to blame the behaviour of the last 10 generations of young drivers on their driving instructors. Not directly, anyway.
There’s a scheme in Scotland being sponsored by a former racing driver who is now a car dealer. Basically, he has agreed to pay for 100 young drivers to take an advanced driving test. He is now trying to get other dealers to provide the same offer to further young drivers throughout Scotland.
Police in Scotland appear to be beside themselves with gushing praise:
Acting road policing Inspector Brian Jones, of Lothian and Borders Police, said: “We cannot support this enough. This is an excellent opportunity for all young drivers to take advantage of a skill for life.
“It could almost be seen as a Holy Grail – it would take five to six years to get the same experience as you get from taking the test.”
On the surface, it sounds like a good idea. But is it really the Holy Grail that everyone is looking for as the Scots police are suggesting? Let’s think about it a little more deeply – which is something none of those in the article seem to have done.
The most telling observation comes from a young driver who completed the course:
Matthew Bushell is among ten young drivers in the Borders to have had the cost of their advanced driving course refunded after passing the test.
Mr Bushell, 27, who took the test two years ago, admitted to having had a completely different attitude behind the wheel in his earlier driving days.
Note the part in bold. What he is clearly saying is that when he was young he felt differently and had a different attitude to the one he has now. His decision to complete this course – apart from the fact that it was free, I would imagine – was based on his 27-year old level of maturity, and he wouldn’t have done it when he was younger. Can we really conclude from all this that a mid-twenties male completing this course is any sort of Holy Grail for the problem of all young driver death statistics?
You have to get older before you can get wiser. By definition, maturity is age- and experience-dependent. It’s a basic law of nature, and there is no suggestion that this course could have any meaningful effect on young and very unwise attitudes that, say, a properly delivered Pass Plus course or decent learner lessons couldn’t. The article continues:
Mr Bushell signed up for the advanced driving course after meeting Bill Allison of the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) at his local car club.
And there’s another problem: the piston-head mentality. Both the sponsor and the sponsored were piston-heads – members of a car club. It is hard to imagine that the sponsor (a former racing driver, now a car dealer) is financing this for purely philanthropic reasons, particularly when you bear in mind it is costing him around £13,000. The advertising he is getting from it must be offsetting that somewhat, no matter how much he might deny it. And certainly you get the impression that the sponsored Mr Bushell might not have bothered at all if he’d had to pay over a hundred quid, instead of getting it for free. But even if the meeting of these two from this particular club had what is essentially a positive outcome, there are many, many clubs where the overall attitude of the membership is far less mature. Let’s face facts here: if a group of people who own fast cars meet at the “fast car owners’ club”, the main discussion topic is inevitably going to be about driving those fast cars fast!
The sponsor is also pictured holding a copy of Roadcraft – the advanced driver’s bible. It’s worth reminding ourselves of the full title of that publication: Roadcraft – The Police Driver’s Handbook (and yes, that’s the same emphasis that is given on the front cover). But in spite of the book’s foreword suggesting that it is also for anyone wishing to take their skills “to a higher level” (cue: a bunch of anoraks falling over themselves to copy every aspect of it), you do not invite anyone who feels like it to drive as if they were police officers on emergency calls to do so when they’re just taking the Jack Russell to Tesco to pick up their milk and a copy of The Daily Mail.
It isn’t training which is the problem. It is attitude. Advanced driving is for drivers with experience, not beginners – and even then, it’s not suitable for all of them. The sooner IAM realises this and keeps its nose out of driver training at grass roots level, the better the chance something can actually get done in the areas where the problems really lie.
Some strange things come in on the newsfeeds. A recent one was from a Yahoo! question someone had asked about a film they saw where the driving examiner put a cup of coffee on the dashboard and told the candidate they would pass if they didn’t spill any during the test.
Apparently, the film (American) was called License to Drive (1988), and you can see the clip on YouTube.
I use the same technique sometimes. Not with an actual drink – I’d just get wet if I did that – but if I have a pupil who tends to drive and brake a bit unevenly (e.g. “like a sack of spanners falling down some stairs” is one description I have used before), I might suggest that they imagine they have a cup of tea sitting on the dashboard and that they should try to avoid sloshing any of it into the saucer as they move off and stop. It’s surprising how often it works.
Mind you, before the benefits have kicked in there are other occasions where if we’d been using a real cup and saucer it would have ended up through the windscreen and 20 feet down the road.
Concerning parking your car on hills and slopes, Driving: The Essential Skills (TES) says:
If you park your vehicle on a slope, remember the following.
Parking facing uphill –
Stop your vehicle as close as you can to the nearside kerb, if there is one.
Leave your steering wheel turned to the right. If the vehicle rolls backwards, the front wheels will be stopped by the kerb.
If there is no kerb, leave your steering wheel turned to the left. If the vehicle rolls back it won’t roll across the road.
Leave the vehicle in first gear with the parking brake firmly applied.
Parking facing downhill –
Leave your steering wheel turned to the left. The kerb should stop any forward movement.
Leave your vehicle in reverse gear with the parking brake firmly applied.
The logic behind this is simple. Facing uphill with a kerb, the front wheels will chock against it before the car picks up enough speed to mount it, and the car will stop. If you point your wheels to the left, the car will first of all roll away from the kerb in an arc and also pick up speed – so it will roll first of all into traffic, and possibly pick up sufficient velocity to mount the pavement or travel far enough back to hit someone or something.
Obviously, if there is no kerb, the lesser of two evils is to have it roll into the verge and not into oncoming traffic, hence the reason for pointing your wheels to the left in that case.
And you leave it in the gear which is the opposite to the direction the car will roll – in this case first, as it will roll backwards if there is a problem with the handbrake.
When facing downhill, you point your wheels to the left so that the kerb will again act as a chock. There is no need for a separate clause for when there is no kerb because you will want the car to roll the same way, away from traffic.
And in this case, you leave it in reverse, since the car will want to roll forwards if the handbrake fails.
I wrote a couple of months ago about how DriveIQ was using raw emotions to try and push its product. They were using the bereaved mother of a girl, who was killed after driving into a tree at 80mph, in order to clearly imply that use of its software would have prevented that tragedy and all others like it!
In typical Mail fashion, it is hailed as a “new weapon”, when in fact it has been around for several years in more or less the form it exists in now – the only thing that’s “new” is that the Mail has got hold of it. But the really unsavoury part is that they’re now using a disabled – but, naturally, highly photogenic – teenager to suggest that what happened to her wouldn’t have if she’d have had DriveIQ available to start with. Reading between the lines there is the clear suggestion that her training (and that of all other new drivers) was somehow lacking, and this is particularly galling when you consider how DriveIQ started – as a2om, who tried to claim that it’s then-salaried instructors were better than anyone else.
The whole story is misleading rubbish.
The girl’s accident involved a car full of drunken teenagers leaving a party, speeding off (her words), flipping into a field, and rolling repeatedly (which suggests grossly excessive speed). Other important details are missing.
I can absolutely guarantee that at no point during her original lessons would she have been told that this was OK, or in any way acceptable behaviour on the roads. I can also guarantee that she will have known that speeding and distraction were dangerous. Only the most stupid of people would not. The problem is that they choose to ignore it and do whatever the hell they want.
The title of the Mail story is:
New weapon in the war against the biggest killer of young people: The cyber road test that stops teenage drivers making the mistake that left me paralysed for life
The story includes lines such as:
Traditional driving lessons concentrate on the technical skills needed to pass the test but have failed to evolve to prevent statistics that show 19 out of 20 road accidents are caused by poor attitude and behaviour, not vehicle-handling skills.
Drive iQ was developed to fill the gaping void in the current learning process.
In our Drive iQ test, Lauren [a new driver] had failed to recognise the dangers we were in [and “crashed”], despite having passed the test to hold a UK licence. If the situation had been real, Lauren would have helped bolster the shocking statistic that one in five young people crashes in the first six months of driving.
If I had had the opportunity to watch the simulation of a crash like mine play out on a computer screen, my life would have turned out very differently.
All of this is highly misleading, and incredibly naive. The author (the disabled girl in question) could have been saved by other, much more reliable ways. How?
Well, if the minimum driving age had been higher, she wouldn’t have been driving that day. If there had been a curfew on young drivers, she probably wouldn’t have been driving from a party (assuming it was a night time party). And if there had been a ban on young drivers carrying passengers, then the distractions she was subject to wouldn’t have been there in the first place. And if she had been driving a car fitted with a black box, she would have been a bit less likely to be driving at such high speed. Most of these things definitely would have prevented her from having an accident on that day. And others would have reduced the risk dramatically.
But there is no way that a computer simulation could make the same claims.
I’m not saying that road safety shouldn’t be taught in schools, and I’m not saying that DriveIQ is useless. But the claims being made for these things are just total rubbish!
The article also mentions the fact that the teenage brain doesn’t properly mature until the early to mid-20s, and still doesn’t make the connection that this cannot be hurried by sitting in front of a computer.
Anyone who has a copy of this should occasionally turn around and make sure they haven’t let reality slip out of their sight.
aching, but never – for even a moment – have I attributed it to the standard of someone’s education. In fact, 
during the test.
several years in more or less the form it exists in now – the only thing that’s “new” is that the Mail has got hold of it. But the really unsavoury part is that they’re now using a disabled – but, naturally, highly photogenic – teenager to suggest that what happened to her wouldn’t have if she’d have had DriveIQ available to start with. Reading between the lines there is the clear suggestion that her training (and that of all other new drivers) was somehow lacking, and this is particularly galling when you consider how DriveIQ started – as a2om, who tried to claim that it’s then-salaried instructors were better than anyone else.