Category - Training

DSA Advice: Driving In Adverse Weather

The latest advice from the DSA is about driving in crappy weather – more of which is forecast for the UK.

Rule 229

Before you set off:

  • you MUST be able to see, so clear all snow and ice from all your windows.
  • you MUST ensure that lights are clean and number plates are clearly visible and legible.
  • make sure the mirrors are clear and the windows are demisted thoroughly.
  • remove all snow that might fall off into the path of other road users.
  • check your planned route is clear of delays and that no further snowfalls or severe weather are predicted.

One of my pupils was boasting last week how his mate could drive the van to work safely with only a small patch of the window scraped free of ice. With the aid of a pen, his finger pointing at it, and opening or closing his eyes to track the pen as my moved it, I think I successfully managed to convince him what a twat his mate is.

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.

DSA Advice: Driving In Icy And Snowy Weather

The latest advice from the DSA, reminding people on how to deal with ice and snow.

Rule 229

Before you set off

  • you MUST be able to see, so clear all snow and ice from all your windows 
  • you MUST ensure that lights are clean and number plates are clearly visible and legible
  • make sure the mirrors are clear and the windows are demisted thoroughly
  • remove all snow that might fall off into the path of other road users
  • check your planned route is clear of delays and that no further snowfalls or severe weather are predicted.

Read more about driving in icy and snowy weather.

At the moment, rain followed by sub-zero temperatures makes morning driving in particular very hazardous.

DSA: Better Rehabilitation For Drunk Drivers

An email alert from the DSA confirming plans to “improve drink-drive rehabilitation”.

It’s actually the government, not specifically the DSA, who is doing this.

Road Safety Minister Stephen Hammond said:

“Most drivers are safe and responsible but there is a reckless minority who put lives in danger by drink driving and those drivers need to be tackled effectively.

“We are currently consulting on a package of tough measures to crack down on drink drivers, including removing their right to demand a blood or urine test. We also need to reduce the likelihood of re-offending, and providing all offenders with access to effective drink-drive rehabilitation courses is an important part of this.”

The way of reducing the likelihood of re-offending is to take their licences away permanently. That’s because most of them will re-offend – or just not get caught.

You can read the full report here.

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.

The Stupidest Idea Ever For Reducing Young Driver Accidents

Two stories came through in the feeds today and between them they present absolutely the most stupid and ill-conceived remedy for reducing accidents among young drivers.

Before I go on, let’s just remind ourselves that young drivers have accidents due to a combination of inexperience per se and simple biology. It’s an inalienable fact of life that you can’t become experienced in anything without passing through the realms of inexperience first. It’s also an inalienable fact that the human brain isn’t fully mature until the age of around 25. And there’s bugger all anyone can do about either of those things.

But that doesn’t stop them trying.

First of all, Fleet Directory reports on statistics I have mentioned several times in the last few months – that although drivers in the age range 17-24 only account for an eighth of all road users, they are involved in a quarter of all serious or fatal accidents. And the solution to this is… start teaching them to drive cars from the age of 11.

Yes, you read that right. From the age of eleven!

In actual fact, it’s yet another carefully orchestrated publicity stunt – this time by SEAT. I reported back in February this year of a similar idiotic caper, championed by Quentin Willson, and others have also attempted to gain valuable advertising by pushing off-road lessons for toddlers and getting amateur journos to talk about it.

Fleet Directory claims that this is the only such scheme in the country – well, unless the story I reported on back in February is the same scheme, they’re completely wrong on that one! So you wonder how wrong they might also be in their gushing support.

Naturally, IAM is sticking its oar in and is filling its collective colostomy bag at the idea.

But as if 11 wasn’t young enough, this story from the Evening Express in Scotland reports that Aberdeen Council is looking to build a junior driving facility where they’d take people as young as three! Apparently, the “facility” would be available to pre-school clubs and primary schools.

IAM hasn’t latched on to that one yet, but I’m sure they’ll think it’s a spiffing idea.

What planet are these people on? In just the same way that giving sex education to primary school kids hasn’t cut teenage pregnancy – quite the opposite, having whetted their appetites – giving them driving lessons is fraught with similar problems.

When I mentioned that original scheme back in February I said that if you give a typical 11-year old the chance to drive a car, he isn’t likely to want to wait another 6 years until he can go for his licence. A 3-year old definitely won’t want to wait 14 years, and having been fed “grown-up” ideas to a brain that simply isn’t grown-up, he probably won’t.

Cars are for adults. We already have way too many of them on the roads as it is, and this idiotic scheme can only have one eventual outcome – reducing the minimum age for driving, and so artificially increasing the number of drivers out there.

As I mentioned above, the human brain doesn’t mature until around 25 years (and the modern male is 5 years behind that, anyway). While it is maturing, it needs gentle conditioning. It can’t be slammed into adult-overdrive just because of some bizarre moneymaking publicity event by people who don’t have a clue.

The Old Ones Are The Best!

I just saw someone trot out the old “earn 30k” accusation against RED driving school.

RED hasn’t advertised using that strapline since it went bust and was taken over several years ago. It’s website clearly says “earn up to £500 a week” – which would equate to a maximum of £26,000 even if you ignored the “up to” part.

Driving instructors really should stay away from stand up comedy. They simply aren’t very good at it, especially when too much bile gets in the way!

Footnote: It seems that facts don’t get in the way of the bile, either! As I say, RED hasn’t advertised like that for years. It is now a totally separate company to the one that used to do the “30k” ads, with only the name having been preserved.

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.

Warwickshire Police Advise On Flood Driving

Good advice from the Warwickshire Police in this article in the Leamington Spa Courier.

Basically, when driving through puddles and flooded roads which are still passable:

  • drive slowly and steadily
  • use first gear
  • use higher revs and slip the clutch
  • leave a large gap between you and the car in front

Water splashing on to electrical components in the car could cause it to cut out, so keeping the engine revving whilst slipping the clutch to keep speed low can avoid this risk. A large gap allows you to take evasive action if the car in front stops.

Most people will know what it’s like when you dive into a swimming pool and land flat. It hurts. Well, driving your car too fast into water has the same effect, on top of which you will create a wave which could soak the engine. It’ll cause you to slow down and the engine could stall – so don’t try and barge through. It just won’t work.

If a sign tells you a road is closed, don’t be a prat and try and get through. It’s closed for a reason.

And don’t immediately accelerate once you’ve gone through water. Test your brakes.

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.