The latest issue of Despatch has an interesting lead article about CPD – that’s continuing professional development, where ADIs are supposed to continue their professional training and development in their own time. CPD has been a buzzword among the unwashed masses for a few years now.
In a nutshell, the DSA has announced that it will NOT make CPD compulsory for the time being. There are a number of interesting threads of thought which lead off from this.
I’m in favour of CPD in general, but 99.9% of what “CPD” courses are (or have been) available out there are useless crap! CPD has been devalued by organisations handing out “CPD certificates” like confetti to people for just turning up to regular meetings, where the only item on the agenda is to have a moan about the DSA and discuss how it could be brought down.
I can assure you that that’s not CPD, anymore than Monopoly money is real money!
Anyway, one interesting thought which occurred to me is how much money some people will have wasted paying for this pointless “CPD” in the past. After all, now that it’s not going to be compulsory – no brownie points, no gold stars, no marks out of ten on the check test – all those meetings or lectures on how to do your tax return by people with no qualifications in the subject matter involved, even though you use an accountant, have effectively been made useless.
Another interesting point is how already the very same people who would have slammed the DSA if CPD had been made compulsory are now criticising them because it hasn’t been! These are the kind of people who would have been first in the queue for those “bring down the DSA” meetings in local pubs, and who are always prattling on about the same subject ad nauseam across various web forums.
I also wonder what some of the larger organisations and franchises will do now? Many have issued “CPD certificates” to their members for attending all sorts of meetings and events. A lot of ADIs have been stupid enough to let pupils down in order to attend these things, but it’s all been devalued – even if those certificates had any value to start with.
I always said that until the DSA issued a list of approved courses I wasn’t going to waste my time attending any that cost me money if there wasn’t a decent qualification at the end of it (and I don’t mean like a BTEC (or any similar vocational qualification), which are impossible to fail and aren’t worth the paper they’re written on).
I wonder if those meetings of the right-on brothers in pubs in Northern towns, bitching about the DSA and looking for ways to criticise it for everything, will still go ahead now?
With the heavy rain we had yesterday, it’s important to explain to pupils about how to handle standing water on the road. Every year the issue of “splashing pedestrians” crops up, and it is usually followed by a hundred different interpretations of whether it is illegal or not.
Let’s try and put it to bed once and for all by quoting an actual solicitor (link removed as it contains suspected malware) – that’s someone who deals with the law for a living – and not a driving instructor or piston head who thinks he is Superman.
More about driving without due care and attention/ careless driving
A person is considered to have been driving carelessly or without due care and attention if their driving falls below what would be expected of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver or driving without reasonable consideration for other road users.
The “Driving Offences Charging Standard” produced by the Crown Prosecution Service provides examples of the types of driving that may be considered to be careless. These include:
driving through a red light,
pulling out of a side road into the path of another vehicle,
driving too close to the rear of another vehicle, or
overtaking on the inside.
Examples of driving without reasonable consideration for other road users include:
flashing headlamps to force other drivers to move over,
remaining in the overtaking lane when it is unnecessary,
failing to dip headlights so other drivers are dazzled, or
splashing pedestrians by driving through a puddle of water.
The maximum penalty for careless driving is a fine of £2,500 and between 3 & 9 penalty points.
So, splashing pedestrians CAN be treated as driving without due care and attention, and it CAN lead to prosecution.
Now, obviously any such instance would have to be proven, but any normal person would simply conclude that they shouldn’t do it, and should avoid doing it even by sheer accident (after all, if you run someone over, saying it was an accident and that you’re sorry doesn’t alter the fact you did it and you’re going to be in trouble because of it). Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who are prepared to try and fight it in court (at least, in their vivid imaginations) in such a way that they seem to believe they ought to be allowed to do it!
On a more realistic note, however, splashing pedestrians is just wrong (yes, it has a slapstick humour aspect, but then so does drug abuse and murder if you look at a lot of Hollywood movies over the years – but those are still crimes) So don’t do it, and take care when driving through water where you might splash someone.
The Americans are going nuts at the moment as new laws banning texting are brought in. Every time a state introduces a law, everyone behaves as though they just discovered a diamond in a dog turd.
Over here, the use of mobile devices when driving has been illegal for some time. You’d think it would be straightforward: don’t mess about with things that you have to hold in your hand, which could distract you when driving. But no, because you always get the ADI who thinks he’s a legal expert who can find loopholes within loopholes, and who cleverly defines a mobile phone as distinct from, say, a tablet or laptop.
As far as the letter of the law is concerned, the handheld mobile devices regulations refer to anything which is capable of interactive communications (two-way handheld radios are exempt) – and by that, it means talking, texting, emailing, web browsing, or navigating (where data has to be sent and received).
It would be difficult to argue that a tablet or laptop – by virtue of having to be held – was exempt if the police pulled you over for it.
The question often arises out in ADI Land because the DVSA is currently trialling the use of tablets instead of the DL25 paper marking sheet for examiners. Obviously, the examiner is going to be using the device while the car is moving during a driving test.
The reason this is not an issue is that on the driving test, the candidate is NOT being supervised. The examiner is NOT in charge of the vehicle. He or she is NOT taking the place of the ADI on a normal lesson.
However, if an ADI – one of the ones, no doubt, who already owns a hi-vis jacket and clipboard so he can pretend to be an examiner on mock tests – were to start using a tablet or laptop while the engine is on, then he or she is using a handheld device while being in charge of the vehicle. It’s “handheld” because you have to hold it!
Even if we go beyond the handheld devices law, if the responsible driver (supervisor or otherwise) is distracted by fiddling with anything in the car – cigarette, sandwiches, drinks, satnav, radio, window, fog lights, whatever – and it can be shown that this resulted in an accident, then there are other laws (driving without due care, etc.) which can come into play if the police are impressed enough by what they see.
Trying to play the amateur lawyer and telling the police that they’re wrong is pretty much guaranteed to impress them enough to throw the book at you. And quite rightly so.
An instructor should be in control at all times. If something is likely to impair that control, then whether it is technically illegal or not is not the issue. It’s just wrong – good old common sense tells you that.
But my iPad doesn’t have 2G/3G/4G connectivity! Someone actually came out with this on one of the forums. See what I mean about ADIs thinking they’re clever?
The law refers to two-way communication or data transmission – it doesn’t say anything about the mobile phone network. An iPad that doesn’t have 2G/3G/4G would be pretty useless if it didn’t have some way of connecting to the internet. Hence, it WILL have wi-fi connectivity, and so it WILL be classed as a handheld device if you’re stopped. Of course, this would be orgasmic for many ADIs, as they would be able to dream of going to court and proving everyone (especially the police) wrong!
And even if you managed by some quirk of fate to win your case on that technicality there would be the small matter of driving without due care and attention. Yes, you might (just a tiny “might”) succeed in getting some judge to agree that the device you were holding in your hand and playing with was not included in the handheld devices regulations. But the simple fact you were doing it while you were supposed to be supervising your learner draws on older and much better established laws.
Is it really worth it? Just don’t use the bloody thing when you’re supervising a learner on normal lessons. You don’t need to… unless you’re a prat.
Note that this is an old article from 2012! I say that, because it’s been getting hits in mid-2019. All references to DSA are, of course, referring to DVSA in 2019. Also, in 2019 you might be asked to drive forwards into a bay, then reverse out again.
Obviously, not everyone in the world reads this blog, and they go on to various web forums to find the answers to problems they have with driving. Unfortunately, they get fed some utter crap as a result.
On one forum (frequented by student types) someone has asked how they would find their “bay parking reference point” in their own car. It’s a sensible enough question as long you accept that one way (there are others) of bay parking IS to use a reference point in the sense that they meant it.
Someone – who I believe is classed as an “advanced driver” – has responded:
DSA stupidly get you to approach away from the selected bay and then start the reverse from that position which is at 90% to the bay!!!!
This is complete bullshit – there is no “DSA way” – and this so-called “advanced driver” also refers to the “non-DSA way”. The DSA doesn’t care how you reverse into the bay as long as you’re in control and safe. Their DT1 document says:
AT THE START OF THE TEST
…They should be asked to drive out of the bay to the left or right (if both options are available in that car park) and stop with the wheels straight before reversing into any convenient bay and parking the car (examiners should not instruct candidates to park in the centre of the bay). The instruction is to prevent them reversing back, into the bay on the same lock.
Providing some attempt has been made to straighten the front wheels, examiners should not be concerned if the wheels are not completely straight. The candidate may elect to drive forward to adjust the angle at which they address the bay they intend to reverse into, or space permitting, they are allowed to drive forwards into one bay before reversing back in a straight line into the opposing bay.
AT THE END OF THE TEST
On the approach to the centre the candidate should be advised to turn into the car park and reverse into any convenient bay to park the car. The candidate can again make their own choice of bay and carry out the manoeuvre in the way that they choose, given the restrictions that may be imposed by the characteristics of the car park.
Nowhere does it say they have to be at 90 degrees to the bay they intend to reverse into. It’s the candidate’s choice how they do it – all they must do is drive out of the bay to the left or right (if they’re already in one) and straighten the wheels to prevent them cheating and just going back in along the path they took as they moved out. They can drive into bays on the opposite side if these are free, utilising whatever space is available – just as they would do in real life.
The total misinformation given by this guy will now be taken as gospel by those who have been unfortunate enough to read it. That’s how bad driving starts – with bad information. So it’s ironic that in this case it should come from a member of a group which has a far higher opinion of itself than the reality would indicate. It’s just a shame that the accuracy of its knowledge is severely corrupted by its feelings towards the DSA. There is NO “DSA way” to bay park.
It’s also worth noting that this same “advanced driver” – who is not an ADI – has been berated on several other forums for his often nonsensical advice.
The 90 degree method is often easier for people who find reversing difficult. And more importantly, since their they have just one chance to get it right on their driving test, it is often the most reproducible way. But it isn’t the only way, and candidates can choose whichever method suits them best.
To answer the original poster’s question…
How do I find the bay park reference point in my own car?
It’s quite easy. Find an empty or quiet car park and drive forwards into one of the middle bays (i.e. those not backed by kerbs or walls). Make sure you’re nicely centred.
Now, just do the manoeuvre in reverse. Drive forward very slowly until your shoulder is level with the end of the bay and stop. As you start moving again very slowly, get full lock on quickly and continue forward until you are at 90 degrees to the bays, straighten your wheels, then stop (or you could stop first, then straighten your wheels as you move again – it’s up to you). Finally, move forward about another 15cm/6 inches and stop.
You should now have a reference point with one of the adjacent lines that you can commit to memory.
You might need to tweak it a bit if your car control is initially a bit clumsy, but this is how to set the reference position if you use the 90 degree method. Then you need to practice the actual manoeuvre to get a consistent routine – it won’t work if you sometimes dry steer, sometimes lurch backward as you release the handbrake, sometimes roll forward or backward, and so on.
Reversing in from 90° confuses other drivers, doesn’t it?
No. In a busy car park, it is up to you to decide how to park. There will be occasions when you decide to drive straight into a bay head first – if someone is following close behind, for example. But don’t try and convince yourself that the 90° reverse method is any more inconvenient than the angled reverse. It isn’t.
If you see an empty bay and you intend to drive into it – forwards or backwards – signal your intention, and then position yourself accordingly.
This story in the Times came through via the newsfeeds. I’m sorry, but it is the biggest pile of manure I’ve seen in a long time.
Driving instructors are pressing for cycle awareness to become part of the practical driving test as a way of slowing a rise in collisions with cyclists.
Translated away from media-speak, this means a handful of instructors who ride bikes themselves have watched the Tour de France and the Olympics, got all excited over it, and so have decided to have their 15 minutes of fame. They’ve run a poll, and while 75% of those responding agreed that learners should be taught about cyclists, it does not mean they think there is a problem. The questions appears to have been worded in such a way that only one outcome was possible.
The real reason that the collision rate between motor vehicles and cyclists is rising is because a very high percentage of cyclists are prats who have no road sense whatsoever, and the sheer number of them out there is on the rise. They ignore cycle paths built specially for them, and practice arrogance to the highest degree. The report even provides this answer in black and white – and then ignores it:
…the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured rose by 13 per cent in the first quarter of 2012, at a time when the number of car occupants killed or seriously injured fell by 4 per cent.
It just has to be a cyclist – someone who is already a few pumps short of fully inflated in the brain department – who can write something like that and then proceed as if exactly the opposite were true.
The real problem starts with lack of cycling proficiency testing among kids, which fell out of favour decades ago. The result is that the current crop of Bradley-wannabes (dressed in blimp costumes) haven’t got a clue. Even worse, most of them don’t want one, since it doesn’t fit in with being arrogant tossers.
Speaking for the motorist, I can guarantee right now – absolutely 100% guarantee – that not one learner driver out there thinks cyclists just bounce when they get hit by a car (no matter how well padded many of them are). I can similarly guarantee that not one learner thinks it’s OK to run over one (just like with squirrels and bunny rabbits). They already get plenty of training about how not to drive into things, and cyclists are only a special case of that – different to pedestrians, for example – because they do things that pedestrians generally don’t. Most learners are so aware of this to the extent they would rather drive headlong into an oncoming bus than approach within four car widths of any cyclist we encounter on lessons. They actually have to be stopped from overdoing it in many cases.
So to suggest that learner drivers need “training” to stop them from thinking that a typical journey must play to the script of some zombie-apocalypse movie is just bloody stupid, and coming from driving instructors, it merely reinforces what I have always said: they tend not to be the brightest sparks in the fire. In fact, they’re rapidly catching up with cyclists on that front.
Cyclists should be kept off most roads (especially clearways), dissuaded from using others, and prosecuted for not using cycle lanes when there is one less than 2 metres away from them. They should pay road tax (or whatever you want to call it) and have to pass a test in order to be allowed anywhere near a road with cars on it. Cyclist advanced stop lines at traffic lights should all be torn up, since the average cyclist will wobble his or her fat arse all the way to the front anyway – whether there’s an advanced line or not – in order to hold up as many people as possible. Either that, or they’ll just skip on to the pavement via the pedestrian crossings to avoid having to stop at all.
Martin Gibbs, British Cycling’s Policy and Legal Affairs Director, said: “We want to see learner drivers educated to see cyclists as legitimate road users who have a right to be treated with respect and consideration. We are also calling for drivers to learn safe overtaking manoeuvres.”
Well, I suppose a HEAD cyclist would be expected to come out with the most stupid comment of all. What dos he think learners get taught? Dangerous overtaking? Run over cyclists?
The people who need training are the ones on two wheels. Not four.
Update #1: I’m attracting a lot of hits from a Scottish cycling website, and it’s no surprise that they aren’t particularly enamoured of this article – from what I can see, that’s because they don’t understand the issues. I tried not to use any big words or joined up writing, but we’re talking about cyclists here…
The problem is – and all those spitting feathers over this article are incapable of seeing it – a huge number of cyclists regularly engage in the following:
no signals of any kind
riding on the pavement when it suits them
not using cycle lanes right next to them
riding across pedestrian crossings to avoid red lights
riding on to the road from the pavement without looking
riding two or more abreast and blocking traffic
looking behind and SEEING they’re blocking traffic – and continuing to do so
riding on clearways and busy dual carriageways during rush hour
riding slowly on fast roads
This is not an exhaustive list. But it is absolutely 100% accurate – the vast majority of cyclists do at least one of these things every time they go out. Many of them probably aren’t even aware they are wrong or causing inconvenience, but many know bloody well what they’re doing, and just don’t care. Both types are as bad as each other.
As I’ve said before, I used to ride with a herd of cyclists and I know exactly what they think about cars and causing hold-ups, etc.
Recently I had an email from some clown who said “cyclists have a right to be on the road”. Like all the rest, his tiny brain-like structure was incapable of understanding what this means. Let us just clarify.
Roads are primarily for cars and other motor vehicles. Cyclists and other users are allowed to use them. However, it is assumed that all road users follow their own applicable guidelines for how to behave, and to adhere to the laws and regulations which apply to everyone equally. These guidelines appear in something called The Highway Code.
I am totally opposed to anyone who abuses the rules, regulations, and guidelines. I regularly comment on bad car drivers – especially because I teach people to be good ones. I also comment on other bad road users in general, and cyclists can bleat all they want when I latch on to them – the list I gave above is highly representative of a massive proportion of bicycle riders out there.
The Spandex-clad Bradley-wannabes simply do not indicate – the only use hand signals they use of any kind are to communicate with irate drivers who can’t get past. It’s got a hundred times worse since the Tour de France and Olympics.
Remember: roads are primarily intended for motor vehicles. Being granted access to them does not make you more important than the roads’ primary users.
Those who don’t like this article are missing the point completely. But then again, if they got the point I wouldn’t be writing about them at all, would I? Still, some of the replies from people are amusing in their banality – once one person has been shocked, and said so, anyone else who says the same (and added nothing new) is just an annoying echo! The forums who see this blog and start whining are just one big, content-free echo.
The people on that Scottish site have really missed the point of this article. Their attitudes all stem from the maxim “got a bike, so I’ll do what I want”, which was one of my main underlying concerns. Absolutely nothing they’ve said suggests they believe otherwise, which proves my point entirely.
Update #2: Well, the Caledonian branch of the “I wanna be just like Bradley” association is really up in arms over this. I noticed a few hits from another source and when I tracked it back it turns out the author of the site is one of the vociferous bunch I mentioned above (from Edinburgh).
In that sense, what he is saying is not really another voice – it’s just the same voice coming from a different place (i.e. his own blog).
Sometimes, I get a pupil who I ask to turn left. They signal left, stay in the left hand lane, and… try to turn right instead. This guy (and all the other McBradley-wannabes) is just like that. He still fails completely to see the point and effectively goes off in a totally separate direction.
He calls himself a “permacyclist”, and although I’m sure that that gets a round of laughs or admiring glances at the local meets as they’re taking off their anoraks (not to mention a wiggly red line from the spellchecker), it doesn’t really have much meaning in the real world. You’re either a cyclist, or you’re not (as I’ve mentioned in passing, I am a cyclist when the fancy takes me). You don’t need any prefixes to gloss it up. Oh, and his photos reveal him to be one of the Spandex-boys, many of whom I have mentioned frequently in this blog.
In his attempts to justify his arrogant cyclists’ attitude he has concluded that I teach pupils to run over cyclists and other road users. He has concluded that all ADIs teach the same (except for his instructor, of course). You can see why I consider the majority of Bradley-wannabes as arrogant and non-too-bright, can’t you?
But he moves into very dangerous territory when he tries his hand at logic. You see, logic only works when you are objective – and simply saying that you are in your bio doesn’t make it true (especially when said blog twists everything into pro-cycling gobbledegook, and never puts the other side across). As I have said – and this is the point that they all keep missing, making the use of logic impossible for them – most cyclists DO ride poorly on the roads. They almost always DO NOT signal. They DO often nip over pedestrian crossings and pavements to avoid red lights. They DO ride THROUGH red lights (just doing it SLOWLY doesn’t make it right, guys – you’re still shooting a red). They DO ride on busy clearways when there is a cycle path running parallel to them and cause hold ups during rush hour. They DO sometimes DELIBERATELY ride several abreast when they KNOW they’re holding people up (I’ve had that from the horses’ mouths). And it goes on and on.
And virtually ALL cyclists do at least one of these things whenever they go out. Some KNOW they’re doing it. But MANY haven’t got a clue. And THAT’S why THEY need educating.
His stab at logic falters again when he argues that cyclists have driving licences, thus implying (even almost stating) that they are perfect drivers with spotless attitudes towards cyclists. This is complete rubbish – having a drivers licence doesn’t make you a good driver, and it has no effect whatsoever on your general attitude. If you decide to be a prat (and being a cyclist doesn’t automatically preclude that), or to follow the herd, then you will do it whether you have a driver’s licence or not, and whether your are in a car or on a bike. Once competence, or lack thereof, has been noted, it comes down to ATTITUDE.
He then moves his logic into the usual politically-correct territory and involves children (even posting a photo of one on his site without blurring their face in order to make a point, which is dangerous when you consider that the web is full or weirdos). No doubt his aim is to curry emotional support by bringing kids into it.
The Spandex-clad Bradley-wannabes aren’t kids. They’re “thirty-something” men (actually, since the Tour de France and Olympics, they’re any adult of any adult age). This has nothing to do with children as far as riding on busy roads and purposely causing hold-ups (or any of the other favoured pastimes) is concerned.
But since children HAVE been brought into it, it is frightening that if they are the offspring of arrogant cyclists who haven’t got a clue about road safety and their position in the pecking order when it comes to rights and responsibilities on the roads (and who wilfully ignore cycle paths, which are there for their own safety), is it any wonder that the accident rates involving cars and cyclists is increasing?
Ironically, the “under-10s” he mentions have better road sense than most Bradley-wannabes. They DON’T usually go on main roads.
Cyclists have certain responsibilities on the roads, and rules that they’re supposed to adhere to. Maybe they should try following them once in a while, instead of trying to justify their otherwise arrogant refusal to do so.
In the meantime, I’ll do what anyone who understands real logic would do – and carry on teaching my learners how to drive properly, including watching out for cyclists who may veer out without signalling, ride off pavements, ride wide or erratically, or weave through traffic on either side. That’s what ANY good driving instructor should be doing.
Update #3: Site traffic has gone through the roof again as of 9 January 2017. Another cyclists’ website has found this article (albeit five years after it was written).
I’d draw their attention to this later article also on the blog. Oh, and also that any previous email dialogue between myself and holier-than-thou forum members was not as one-sided nor as “nasty” as one party is suggesting, and that Flitwick is spelt differently to Nottingham, and – oddly enough – it also appears in a different place on most maps!
One more time: I am a cyclist myself (sometimes). I passed my cycling proficiency when I was 11. I always adhere to the rules in the Highway Code, whether in a car or on my bike. That puts me in a minority among cyclists.
You often hear people say that you must move your head when you check your mirrors so that the examiner knows you’re doing it. Technically, this is completely untrue.
Only recently, I took a lad to test who was an absolute master at not moving his head, only his eyes. I’m not exaggerating, but he really only flicked his eyes. His head didn’t move even a millimetre. After his test I asked the examiner (in the lad’s presence) if he was happy with his checks because of the lack of head movement, and he said there was no problem at all.
Several years ago I had a girl who was the same. Again, she was not faulted once for mirror checks, even though she didn’t move her head one bit when she looked.
You see, examiners are trained to look for the mirror checks – not specifically the head movement. There is always the possibility that an inexperienced examiner might not pick up the checks, but I’ve never come across one. Obviously, head movement removes that particular doubt – but it definitely isn’t mandatory to do the nodding dog routine.
Far more important, though, is actually seeing what is there.
A few months ago I was on a lesson with a pupil and we were doing a reverse around a corner. At one point she looked down the road straight at a council jetting truck (the ones that suck drains clean), and carried on reversing. When she’d finished, I asked her if she’d seen it. She said “no”.
And some years ago now I can remember one lad who was busy looking down at the gearstick when I said “mirrors” at a junction. I cracked up when he waved his head from side to side, still looking at the gearstick. When I pulled him over he said “I know what you’re going to say”. And he did.
And it isn’t uncommon on early-stage lessons for pupils to do mirror and shoulder checks before moving off – and then I have to use the dual controls because there is something coming and they’ve not seen it. Personally, I like it when that happens because it is easier to expand on the risks and dangers without the worry that they think you’re just nagging them (and I base that on the fact that occasionally you get a cocky one who ignores you until he screws up – then you have a huge lever with which to get your point across once and for all).
When I’m reversing my brain is shouting at me that the most important place to keep looking is the next space the car is going to occupy (i.e. behind me in the direction I’m going). Pupils, on the other hand, often push that one right to the bottom of the list, and stare aimlessly down the road in front. It’s important to get the right balance.
Remember why you’re checking your mirrors and blindspots in the first place. It’s to see if there is anything there, so you can decide how to proceed. That’s all. The head movement is irrelevant.
Not looking, or not looking properly, is a fault. Not seeing is a fault. Ignoring what you see is a fault. Actually dealing with what you see is very easy – as long as you see it!
In that article I was making the point that coaching is not a magic pill to cure all society’s ills, and especially not those that afflict young drivers, who as a group exhibit the worst driving behaviour and experience the most fatal accidents on our roads. I used an analogy where I referred to pasty white boys pretending to be black.
The entire paragraph was as follows – and you have to read it in context with the suggestion I was refuting, which said that “introducing coaching” to driving instruction would reduce accidents involving young people by changing how they think and behave:
As an example, if you have someone who spent their entire time at school pretending to be black in spite of being a pasty white colour (i.e. wearing a stupid baseball cap), plus a shell suit or Burberry clobber, cheap bling, BMX bike, no taste in music, their whole evenings hanging around outside the chip shop smoking, spitting, and swearing at people who walk past, and who was known to the police from about 10 minutes after he was born because of who his parents were, well, that person just might be tempted to drive in an inappropriate manner when he passes his test and buys a Corsa with 4-inch exhaust pipe and blacked out windows. His whole life to that point has conditioned him.
To begin with, the important thing is what I meant, not what some namby-pamby politically correct dipstick can contrive to read into it.
But let’s over-analyse the concept of “pasty white boys pretending to be black” for a moment.
Many years ago, I used to tippy-toe around the issue of people being black until a black friend told me that he found the term “coloured” offensive. I had been using it in an attempt to be respectful, but it taught me a valued lesson. However, one (of many) of the reasons I believed what I did was that another friend’s wife had a high-up position working for the local council, and one day she had been almost sacked for asking a black woman if she wanted her coffee “black or white”. In the 80s and early 90s you really had to be careful.
Even today, I believe I am correct in saying that the word “blackboard” is still taboo in some establishments, and “chalkboard” is used instead. Some people claim this is an urban myth, but there are plenty of nutters out there who would gladly take issue (via the contact form, no doubt) if you dared to use the taboo words.
Now, what I said about pasty white boys pretending they’re black was an allusion to gangsta rap music.
What Is Gangsta Rap?
Gangsta rap is a genre of hip-hop that reflects the violent lifestyles of inner-city youth. The genre was pioneered around 1983 by Ice T with songs like “Cold Winter Madness” and “Body Rock/Killers.” Gangsta rap was popularized by illustrious rap groups like NWA and Boogie Down Productions in the late 80s…
Gangsta rap revolves around aggressive lyrics and trunk-heavy beats. Despite its huge acceptance in the early 90s, gangsta rap has been condemned for its violent themes. Rappers often defend themselves by saying that they’re only depicting actual inner-city struggles, not promoting it…
Like it or not, the genre is predominantly covered by black rappers. It originated with black rappers. And in all honesty, only black rappers can carry off the image successfully. You don’t have to be black to be a rapper, but it definitely helps the image. Wikipedia explains:
The subject matter inherent in gangsta rap has caused a great deal of controversy. Criticism has come from both left wing and right wing commentators, and religious leaders, who have accused the genre of promoting crime, violence, profanity, sex, homophobia, racism, promiscuity, misogyny, rape, street gangs, drive-by shootings, vandalism, thievery, drug dealing, alcohol abuse, substance abuse and materialism.
This is what I was alluding to with my comment about pasty white boys pretending to be black. With hindsight, I might have said “pasty white boys pretending to be gangsta rappers”, but I’m sure the net-nanny who wrote to me would have found fault with that too. In any case, the point I was making would have been identical. And I preferred the allusory rather than the literal approach, because I’m not afraid of the “black” word. Skinny white juveniles cannot pass themselves of convincingly as rappers, but that is only an external feature that hits me every time I see it. What goes on inside is another matter entirely.
I see them every day. Spindly little white kids with over-sized baseball caps, often with one trouser leg rolled up (signifying gang membership – I saw a fat, tattooed 20-something like that last week). In a year or two’s time, I’ll be teaching them to drive, and nothing I can say or do for the three months they’re with me (for a maximum of two hours a week) will alter what they’ve been conditioned to behave like up until then. It is the image they are trying to adopt – and all that it implies, as explained in the Wikipedia quote – which is the problem.
Most rappers might be black (which is why my allusion works). But not all black people are rappers (which is why the use of the word “black” is not racist).
The crazy person from Manchester should really get a life.
A bit obscure, but this article in the John O’Groat Journal is full of genuine wisdom.
The title – “Learning to drive does not stop when you pass your test” – couldn’t be more true. The driving test is just the first step on a lifelong learning curve.
But the comment that caught my eye was this:
DRIVING – it’s the ambition of many young people and it opens up countless opportunities. It is something we want to do from a young age. Of course then we can only use toy cars but the urge is still there. Then finally you turn 17.
This is precisely what I have been saying. Perhaps now those people who deliver lessons to children – a showy philanthropic pretence – will take note, and at least admit that their clever money-making scheme has potential drawbacks.
At the time I stuck my neck out to inform them on a certain forum (frequented by very immature people). Unfortunately – nearly a year down the line – we have heard nothing from Mike Penning (Road Safety Minister) indicating that the supposed change to the law is ever going to happen, and those immature types are becoming restless in their typically immature way! They’re about 5 minutes away from shooting the messenger.
The original reports were very specific. Penning was very specific. So it just goes to show how much you can trust a Tory politician when he says something.
Even if it came into effect next week, the total lack of communication or information to instructors (who would need to prepare) and everyone else following such an announcement is shocking.
I can see no reason to suggest that it isn’t going to happen, but the big question remains “when?” – and Penning has shown yet again what a clown he really is.
I saw this a few days ago. It tells how driving lessons are being given to young people between 15 and 19 years old in Wokingham.
I’ve written before about how lessons have been given to those as young as 11, and that that particular course was being championed by self-declared motoring guru (and former Top Gear presenter), Quentin Willson. I said then that I believe children should be kept away from cars – which are for adults – but taught road safety through cycling proficiency and things like The Green Cross Code, etc.
The reason I believe that is because this current fad is simply designed to pander to the wants of people who would otherwise break the law. The best it can achieve is to make sure they break the law slightly more safely than they would have done otherwise. More realistically, though, it is simply a unique selling point (USP) dreamed up by a handful of driving instructors, and as such I can’t fault it.
This latest example is probably just a case of jumping on the bandwagon, and I doubt that it would have happened if the other lot hadn’t done it first. Again, from the perspective of making money for driving instructors, the idea cannot be faulted.
But I will say again that cars are for adults, not children. And children shouldn’t be encouraged like this when the situation with them driving illegally is already bad enough. There’s no evidence that starting them early makes them safer drivers in later life – that’s just wishful thinking. Far too many other factors govern their behaviour, and I fear that this pandering to them is simply another factor likely to worsen their behaviour rather than improve it.
Parents (many of whom are driving instructors) should concentrate on saying “NO” to their offspring a little more instead of trying to turn them into mini-adults way before their DNA has triggered enough of the right hormones for them to pull it off.
Wokingham is at least only dealing with teenagers, but 15 is still too young for someone to be tempted with something that will become a symbol of their embryonic manhood once they turn 17.
An ATV is an All Terrain Vehicle (I guess we’d call them quad bikes over here). Well, in Canada a paediatric group is saying that children should be banned from driving them because…
…children under the age of 16 lack the knowledge, physical size, strength, and cognitive and motor skills to operate the machines safely…
…The highest risk of injury is really between sort of [ages] 10 to 25…
Physical size and strength are obviously more relevant to ATVs. But cognitive and motor skills are definitely not. And that’s one of the major reasons young drivers have accidents after they pass their driving tests.
It translates to: they’re not as good as they think they are – even up to age 25.
These misguided adults offering kiddie-lessons can’t see what they’re really doing – they’re trying to convince children that they ARE that good, when the laws of nature guarantee that they aren’t.
I’ll say again that it’s why children should be kept away from motor vehicles, and not encouraged to play with them and made to think they’re all grown up before their time.
a few years now.
This 
You see, examiners are trained to look for the mirror checks – not specifically the head movement. There is always the possibility that an inexperienced examiner might not pick up the checks, but I’ve never come across one. Obviously, head movement removes that particular doubt – but it definitely isn’t mandatory to do the nodding dog routine.
instructor (i.e. an ADI).
I’ve