Training - Diary Of An ADI

Are Learners Taking Their Tests Too Early?

19/11/2012

This story came in on the newsfeed. The title gives the impression that it is gong to be a learned discussion on whether or not learner drivers take their tests too early – but it isn’t any such thing.

The entire article is based on the single premise that if the national average number of hours taken is 40, then anyone taking their test in less hours than that is doing it too early!

And now, recent research is suggesting that learner drivers are taking the practical driving test too early, in fact, 90% of learner drivers! Basically, the claim is that only 10% of learner drivers are taking the recommended amount of driving lessons before the driving test. Based on the average prices, 40 hours of tuition is worth over £900, which is not including the cost of taking the theory and practical driving tests.

Absolute nonsense, and yet another example of someone who doesn’t understand statistics – but talks about them anyway. That figure of 40 hours is NOT a “recommended amount” of hours – it’s the average number people who pass their tests have actually taken, and therefore includes those who do it quicker than average as well as those who take longer. The author of the article ought to look up the word “average” and try to understand it before using it again.

Personally, I would like nothing more than for there to be a minimum number of hours professional training required before someone is allowed to take their driving test. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case – and it isn’t likely to be anytime soon. Even if they did impose a minimum number of lessons required, they simply wouldn’t dare make it as high as 40!

I would also like every learner to be a bottomless pit when it comes to having enough money to take lessons. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case either.

You can’t fluke your way through the driving test – you’re either good enough to pass it or you’re not. The only thing that the test doesn’t evaluate is experience, and it never has done.

People say that driving today is a lot different to what it was 20 or 30 years ago. Part of me wants to shout “bollocks” to that – in fact, part of me will shout “bollocks”, because I know what they are getting at when they say it. In actual fact, driving today isn’t much different to what it was 20-odd years ago. There’s more traffic, and other drivers are bigger arseholes, but that’s about it. You still steer a car using a steering wheel, and there are still three pedals on the floor (or two if you’re in an automatic). They still use tarmac on the roads, and lanes have things called “white lines” between them. Apart from what you keep reading about the Google driverless car, we’re nowhere near having them out there alongside us yet, and cars still only employ two dimensions when travelling – not three, like in Blade Runner.

The bottom line is that – give or take one or two over the years – all of my pupils take their tests when they’re ready. If one is ready in less than 20 hours, then I will not stop them. Yes, there are some people out there – often immigrants desperate for licences, but not smart enough to realise how much extra it is costing them doing it their way – who take test after test but no formal lessons. But it sure as hell isn’t 90% of all learners.

Parents Teaching Driving Skills To Kids

18/11/2012

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, General, Training

I often wonder to myself why it is that so many instructors are dead set against parents or friends teaching people to drive.

Any learner driver has got to attain a certain level of competence in order to pass their driving test. If the parent does a bad job of teaching, the learner simply doesn’t pass the test. However, if the learner does pass, then the parent must have provided at least the bare minimum of tuition in order for them to do so. Where that bare minimum actually comes from is irrelevant. It’s not rocket science working this out.

Indeed, in most cases the parent will have provided a level of worldly wisdom concerning driving that most ADIs would struggle to achieve in the limited amount of time they spend with their typical pupil.

The suggestion that parents are not capable of teaching their kids is laughable. Some might not be – but as I say, the learner usually fails if that is the case. A parent might not know all the buzzwords, or have fancy briefings and lesson plans to pore over, but if they themselves know how to handle a car and other traffic then if they can convey that – however inefficiently compared to SuperADI – to their offspring they are adequate trainers.

When it comes down to it, I would guess that most parents are actually better driving teachers than quite a few ADIs out there. They might not pass Part 2 or 3, of course, but what of that? It’s not the issue.

I actively encourage parents to come out on lessons with me and the pupil so I can show them what to look for. I also explain how what they were taught – and the way they’ve come to do things since then – might not be the best way nowadays, and giving the learner mixed messages just makes it harder for them. These are parents who have chosen not to teach their own kids, but who are going to supervise private practice, so I don’t really want them trying to “teach” because of those mixed messages.

In the past, though, I’ve had quite a few people who have been taught by parents and then sent to me to be “finished off”, and quite honestly none of them have turned out to be homicidal maniacs who can’t even get in the car without stalling it. They’re usually lacking mirror checks (or doing too many) or not very good with roundabouts, say. But nothing to suggest that the parent has done a bad job. And like I say, if they went to test like that they’d just fail.

As recent posts have intimated, though. The biggest problem with new drivers is what their parents didn’t teach them in the sixteen-plus years before their driving test.

Young Driver Accident Statistics

14/11/2012

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, Education, Training

I was surprised to see on a forum that the fact that young people have more accidents was being disputed. Insurance companies don’t charge young people more just for fun – it’s based on factual data.

Some of the comments were opinion-based, and made no attempt to link to actual statistics. But the statistics are there for anyone who cares to look (unfortunately, too many people favour the “lies, damned lies, and statistics” mantra over facts, and appear to see no wrong in today’s young people).

This report from 2010, based on investigations by Admiral, reveals that 17 and 18 year olds are:

twice as likely to have an accident as someone in their 30s
three times as likely than someone in their 40s
six times as likely as someone over 50

The data cover 2 million motorists, so they’re hardly non-representative. Admiral also found that:

13% of 17 and 18-year olds have had crashes
6.5% of motorists overall have had crashes
4.5% of those in their 40s have had crashes
2% of over 50s have had crashes

The cost of the claim was also revealing. The average claim value was:

£3,500 for 17 and 18-year olds
£1,741 for drivers overall
Accident claims by 17 and 18-year olds are five times more likely to include an injury to someone

A spokeswoman for Admiral said that the young driver statistics only seem to improve when they reach 25. The report also notes that those in the 17-21 age group are four times more likely than the average driver to be involved in a careless driving rap.

This report by Roadsafe (2009) also makes interesting reading. In particular the table on page 5, which compares factors involved in KSIs against age. It shows that 17-24 year olds are, when compared to over 25s:

more than twice as likely to lose control
twice as likely to be careless, reckless, or in a hurry
twice as likely to be caught out by road conditions
ten times as likely to be inexperienced, resulting in an accident
over twice as likely to be travelling too fast for the conditions
three times as likely to be exceeding the speed limit

This was comparing nearly 40,000 young driver KSIs with 150,000 older driver KSIs.

Brake, the road safety charity, reports that:

There is a wealth of research and casualty data showing that young drivers – particularly young male drivers – are at a much higher risk of crashing than older drivers. They are therefore more at risk of losing their lives or being seriously injured on the road, often killing or injuring their young passengers or other road users too. For example, in the UK only one in eight driver licence holders is aged 25 or under, yet one in three drivers who die is under 25.

That is quite a sobering thought. That only 12.5% of the driving population accounts for 33% of all road deaths. The report also notes:

17-20 year old males are seven times more at risk than all male drivers
between 2am and 5am they are seventeen times more at risk

Those wishy-washy liberals who can find no wrong in today’s youth need a good slap to wake them up. There is clearly a problem.

The Safe Roads Partnership says much the same thing, and also includes numerous report references for those ready to dispute the facts. Interestingly, they also point to Pass Plus as being a way of improving matters – which flies in the face of recent comments by ADIs that Pass Plus is a waste of time (it’s only a waste of time if the person delivering it is a crap instructor).

From my own perspective, I teach people to drive. How they choose to behave when they leave me is unfortunately out of my control, and no one is ever going to convince me otherwise. Part of the reason many of them DO behave so differently on their own is that they’ve been brought up badly by people who simply can’t see that there are problems, and so who don’t do anything about it. I mean parents and school teachers.

I say again: I teach them how to drive. I give them all the necessary skills to do what I did when I learnt to drive – and that is to take care and carry on learning. That’s what the driving test does. It allows people who have reached the first point on a lifelong learning curve to go out and move to the next level.

Unfortunately, modern youngsters have been brought up to believe differently. And that’s why we have such shocking statistics.

One more thing. It doesn’t matter if the number of deaths involving 17-24 year olds has fallen over the last 10 years. What matters is the proportion of deaths compared to other age groups – because that highlights the problem instead of trying to sweep it under the carpet.

Can You Practice Bay Parking At Colwick MPTC?

14/11/2012

DOAADI

ADI, Driving Tests, DSA, Training

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.

A Storm In A (Very Small) Teacup

14/11/2012

DOAADI

ADI, DSA, Training

I noticed another scuffle recently, where one instructor daring to suggest that they know something before anyone else ruffles the feathers of all the others who believe that only they are privy to “secret” information from the DSA.

It all seems to revolve around a supposed “leaked” internal document referring to proposals to change the qualifying process for ADIs. Let’s just clarify – this means people who aren’t ADIs, and who possibly haven’t even considered becoming one yet. It does not refer to anyone already doing the job.

The section in the document that is causing the trouble says:

…introducing a vocational qualification, to replace the current DSA test route, which would mean:

individual trainees would be assessed by recognised training organisations who have demonstrated the ability to assess

DSA would verify recognised training centres are delivering assessments to the required standard

This doesn’t worry me too much – but it has the usual agitators spitting feathers. Why?

Well, there has been talk of introducing a vocational qualification for some time – it would just be a recognised national qualification. What they’re saying is that the qualifying process would involve gaining this qualification. It’s the “recognised training organisations” part that is at the root of the concern, though.

Naturally, every card-carrying unionised ADI north of the River Trent will resent any “training organisation” being involved. That’s because they know it will likely end up being large national driving schools who are given this responsibility. The likes of the AA, BSM, Red, and so on. And that must be opposed by them at all costs – no matter how good an idea it is.

Absolutely the last thing we want is for every one-man outfit out there being a “recognised training organisation” – but denying such people that opportunity is the lifeblood of the typical union agitator, and it gives them something to rant about at meetings.

The DSA is supposed to be opening this up for consultation next year. If it ever happens – and that is far from certain – it won’t be for several years after that that it is introduced, and it will be a further several years before the first products of the system start teaching.

There is also an important sentence just before the I quoted section above. It says:

Options include:

And then goes on to list three topics, of which the above is just one. So the plan is not cut in stone, and the only ones who would be worried within the DSA are those who can see their jobs going at some point if it were introduced, hence the “leak” and the apparent concern of the whistle-blower involved.

My main concern is the second possible option, which involves only doing two manoeuvres instead of four during the Part 2 test to allow time for a “talk-through”. Why not do all four manoeuvres AND a talk-through, for crying out loud. Make the test harder, not easier.

DSA Advice: Rules For Cyclists

14/11/2012

DOAADI

DSA, News, Training

The latest advice email from the DSA made me smile for various reasons:

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

Rule 64

I think that is how you define “succinct”. It’s worth noting that the full Highway Code contains more rules and guidelines both for and about cyclists.

It also made me smile because with the recent news that our new national god and idol, Bradley Wiggins, had been knocked off his bike, you’d have thought the best place for cyclists to be would be off the road and on the pavement. After all, that’s where they go when they want to avoid stopping at traffic lights or bypass other traffic (and before that bunch of spandex-clad Scottish biker boys gets itself all wound up again, yes, that’s what most cyclists DO do).

Fortunately, Wiggins (and the national head coach, who was involved in a separate incident) will make a full recovery. But you have to ask what alternative fate might have befallen Wiggins if he hadn’t been riding on a main road in the dark, and during rush hour – and presumably a little faster than the average cyclist. And he didn’t do himself any favours with that middle-finger salute when he left hospital.

One thing that appears certain is that the woman driver who hit him is likely to get the book thrown at her, because our enforcement people have entered full-on, media-versus-anyone-who-ever-even-met-Jimmy-Saville mode over the incident (i.e. blame, blame, blame, blame).

Incidentally, I got a Police Caution Letter for riding on a pavement when I was at school. Then, the intervening years appeared to encourage people (children especially) to stay off roads because they’re dangerous. Then, when we entered our Green Period (characterised by all the Wiggins-wannabes clad in Spandex, with what appear to be walnuts shoved down their leggings as they cultivate their varicose veins), we all discover that Number One Priority on roads must be given to the pushbike.

Go figure.

Client-Centred Learning (CCL)

13/11/2012

DOAADI

ADI, DSA, Education, Training

Or what most people are saying when they mean ‘coaching’ these days.

Note: This is an old article from 2012. DSA is now DVSA.

The recent announcement that CPD wasn’t going to be compulsory (for the foreseeable future, anyway) threw the current crop of nouveau-spammers into disarray. No longer could they send out almost daily emails offering their latest miracle ‘coaching’ course as the only way to possibly avoid being stricken from the Register and thrown into a foreign hellhole prison somewhere. Suddenly, their cash flow projections looked at risk – after all, not all ADIs are so stupid that they will keep paying £200 for a course that isn’t absolutely necessary.

Some are, of course. Or they’re just not very good at what they do and are desperately trying to pay their way to superstardom in much the same way they were persuaded to become ADIs in the first place so they could earn £30,000 a year working a couple of hours day, a couple of weekdays each week.

Anyway, there has been a noticeable shift over the last couple of months. The nouveau-spammers are now offering ‘client-centred learning’ (CCL) courses instead as though nothing has changed. They’ve made this shift in much the same way that the enemy was switched seamlessly between Eastasia and Eurasia in George Orwell’s 1984. I think it was described as ‘a lunatic dislocation of the mind’ in that novel to explain how it was possible for people to accept such a fabricated change of facts blindly and without question, and to actually believe it.

Client-centred learning – CCL – is the term DSA is using to describe it’s preferred approach to training styles following the two-year Learning To Drive (LTD) study. There is a distinction – DSA points out that coaching can mean quite a lot of different things, including CCL.

As a result of the LTD trial a new syllabus has been put together incorporating a number of scenarios – to be precise, 23 scenarios are included. DSA has pointed out that CCL is not a replacement for current methods. It is a new tool to be used when appropriate.

This is clearly at odds with what the nouveau-spammers have been trying to tell people over the last few years in their numerous emails, and on test centre waiting room posters. If you’d have listened to them you’d have thought that every instructor was going to have to start their careers again from scratch (across the forums, that was clearly what people were coming away understanding). Those who had actually wasted money on attending one or more of these courses frequently fuelled the fire making comments they couldn’t substantiate using what they’d apparently ‘learned’.

The new DSA syllabus deals exclusively with the ‘higher levels’ (often referred to as levels 3 & 4) of the GDE Matrix. These are the ones labelled as Goals And Context, and Goals For Life, which I discussed initially well over 2 years ago.

When the LTD trial began the suggestion was that when it was complete it would have to become part of every ADI’s training package going forward. More than two years down the line this is no longer the case. DSA has stated that check test examiners have been trained to asses on both CCL and non-CCL skills and so an ADI who does things the way they have always done them will not be penalised. There are no plans to make it in any way compulsory for existing ADIs.

CCL will be part of the training for new ADIs (while they are PDIs), though. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that CCL will not be mandatory until all existing ADIs on the Register have retired. By that time, it will just be part of the training, and no one who fancies themselves as a modern-day Wat Tyler in opposing the evil DSA will have anything to fuss about.

Personally, I’d much rather see it become mandatory for existing ADIs. That’s because the LTD trial set out to fix the problem of new, young drivers killing themselves, pinning some of the responsibility on some ADIs who just taught people to pass the test. It cannot possibly achieve any of that if the same ADIs are still teaching the way they always have.

As I have said before on more than one occasion, many instructors are already using CCL techniques. The big problem is that many are not – and the reasons for that are very complex, ranging from just not being cut out for the job up to offering stupidly cheap lesson prices and so not being able to afford to teach people properly.

Unless CCL as it applies to the LTD syllabus are applied across the board then nothing can change. And any such move would be opposed by all the Wat Tylers out there through their ‘local groups’. DSA has chosen the easy way out, I think.

Footnote: Undoubtedly there will be quite a few out there who will resent anyone but them stating what DSA is or isn’t going to do. The information here was obtained from me personally attending a course run by DSA concerning the new syllabus and CCL. It is current and accurate – not old or twisted – information.

Moving Off Safely – Looking Over Your Shoulder

31/10/2012

DOAADI

ADI, Driving Tests, DSA, Training

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.

DSA Advice: Driving In Fog

31/10/2012

DOAADI

ADI, DSA, Training

The latest DSA Highway Code advice – this one is about driving in fog:

When driving in fog you should:

use your lights as required

keep a safe distance behind the vehicle in front. Rear lights can give a false sense of security

be able to pull up well within the distance you can see clearly. This is particularly important on motorways and dual carriageways, as vehicles are travelling faster

use your windscreen wipers and demisters

beware of other drivers not using headlights

not accelerate to get away from a vehicle which is too close behind you

check your mirrors before you slow down. Then use your brakes so that your brake lights warn drivers behind you that you are slowing down

stop in the correct position at a junction with limited visibility and listen for traffic. When you are sure it is safe to emerge, do so positively and do not hesitate in a position that puts you directly in the path of approaching vehicles.

Rule 235

DSA Advice: General Rules

27/10/2012

DOAADI

ADI, DSA, Training

A reminder from the DSA on general driving procedures:

Before moving off you should:

use all mirrors to check the road is clear

look round to check the blind spots (the areas you are unable to see in the mirrors)

signal if necessary before moving out

look round for a final check

Move off only when it is safe to do so.

Rule 159

Not doing a blindspot check over your right shoulder before moving off is one of the most common causes of failing your driving test. It’s also one of the easiest ways of annoying the hell out of other drivers.

Only bad drivers fail to check properly before moving off.

The blindspot check isn’t just for the test – it’s for life!

Category - Training