To any PDIs out there, adiNEWS Magazine is offering a free 6 month subscription.
Just click the link (or the logo) and enter the password “sixfree”. The offer is valid to new subscribers only until May 2012.
As the blurb says, there’s no obligation. No payment. No fuss.
I’d recommend the magazine to anyone. It contains news and plenty of impartial advice, and that is what PDIs and newly-qualified ADIs need most of all.
This is an old post.
With the impending change to the law, which will see learner drivers allowed on the motorways with their instructors (and that’s means with ADIs – not mum and dad), there is a big question mark hanging over what they will learn from what they see other drivers doing, as opposed to what those other drivers should be doing. The most obvious example is speed and the various speed limits associated with motorways.
About 90% of the population labours under the mistaken impression that 70mph is an “advisory” limit, and that it’s perfectly safe and legal to do 80 or even 90mph if “you can see it is safe”. They support this argument with the claim that the police won’t stop you “unless you’re doing more than a ton”, or some similarly stupid logic.
Some might argue that this is no different to what happens on normal roads. But motorways have been for so long the preserve of the “advanced” motorist, and what happens on them is not the same as on normal roads at all – it’s one big reason why learners are being allowed on them: the simple fact that they ARE different!
A similarly high percentage of these “expert” drivers also thinks it’s OK to ignore reduced speed limits through road works – particularly if it looks like no road work activity is taking place (at night times or weekends, for example). Of course, they know that something must be different – most of them will still slow down a little to begin with – but it’s a case of monkey-see-monkey-do, and once they’ve been frustrated for a mile or so by others going faster than them, they also speed up.
The fact of the matter is that the police COULD stop you, and they COULD prosecute you, if you exceed 70mph on a road works-free motorway. It would depend heavily on the circumstances. And they COULD also stop and prosecute you if you ignore the round speed limit signs erected through road works. In most cases, to avoid having to keep taking them down at night, the construction companies seek temporary speed limit restrictions, which remain in force for the duration of the works. The problem of “experts” putting road workers’ lives at risk is so bad that the construction companies sometimes even erect expensive average speed cameras in places where work is likely to be of an extended nature (but even then, the “experts” apparently know when these are not in service, and therefore can treat them as “advisory”).
In my area, the A46 is being turned into a dual carriageway, and various bypasses built. Work started in 2009 and is due to end this spring – it’s been a huge project. But you can subscribe to Highways Agency updates for projects such as this, and I can assure you that official temporary speed limit restrictions have changed dozens of times in the period work has been in progress (I had to unsubscribe in the end because of the volume of the updates – not all of them are particularly relevant to the driver).
The police have guidelines which they can use to decide when to issue a ticket or notice of intended prosecution (NIP). This Which?Car article (it’s now dead) tables the ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) recommendations for when to issue a ticket and when to prosecute, but it also stresses that individual forces can use their own discretion – and only an idiot would assume that “discretion” just applies to not prosecuting someone.
But getting back to the point. Everything I’ve already mentioned also applies to the motorway matrix sign system. And this is where learners are likely to become extremely confused by what they see, and what it appears they might end up being taught by people who always think that they know best.
Matrix signs usually appear in the central reservation, and the Highway Code says the following about them:
255
Motorway signals (see ‘Light signals controlling traffic’) are used to warn you of a danger ahead. For example, there may be an incident, fog, a spillage or road workers on the carriageway which you may not immediately be able to see.
256
Signals situated on the central reservation apply to all lanes. On very busy stretches, signals may be overhead with a separate signal for each lane.
257
Amber flashing lights. These warn of a hazard ahead. The signal may show a temporary maximum speed limit, lanes that are closed or a message such as ‘Fog’. Adjust your speed and look out for the danger until you pass a signal which is not flashing or one that gives the ‘All clear’ sign and you are sure it is safe to increase your speed.
Now, the problem here is that there is no MUST about it. In the Highway Code, anything that you MUST or MUST NOT do (in bold red), as opposed to SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do (in bold black) will have a specific law associated with it, meaning that if you contravene that specific rule then you are committing an offence. The Highway Code does not say that the matrix signs are The Law, so the “experts” regard them as “advisory” – it is inevitable, therefore, that some learners will end up being taught the same.
I found this interesting link to Traffic Answers. What especially interested me was what it said about matrix signs.
Are speed limits on them obligatory? No, but they would be displayed for a reason, and if you were caught ignoring them then you could possibly be committing the offence of driving without due care and attention or even dangerous driving. But even more interesting is this comment:
In some areas, the local legislation is such that they have now become mandatory and you could, therefore, be prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit.
Now this flies completely in the face of those “experts” who know best, and who insist on emphasising the “advisory” nature of matrix speed limits. But I already know their argument. It will be along the lines of “they can’t do that”, combined with some amateur courtroom stuff about how it would have to get through Parliament! Or maybe something like “ah! But that’s only the overhead ones…”
As Traffic Answers says, “there is always a cause for them even if it doesn’t become apparent”. They cite the example of something lying in the carriageway (something that you might pass without even noticing if it isn’t in your lane), and the speed limit being reduced accordingly to reduce risk. There is no way ANY “expert” could possibly know whether this is the case, and so no way they could make the correct decision to ignore the matrix limit.
Even if Traffic Answers is wrong concerning matrix speed limits being mandatory “in some areas”, teaching learner drivers to ignore them would be appallingly bad instruction.
It will be interesting to see if taking learners on to motorways has the effect that Mike Penning says it will – by reducing motorway fatalities. Because if new drivers end up being given even the slightest indication that matrix signs can be ignored “if you judge it to be safe”, I just can’t see that happening. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I was on a lesson with a pupil today who has his test coming up early next year. We were just about to start heading home, when I asked him if he’d ever driven through a McDonalds Drive Thru before. He hadn’t.
So I said “look, almost the first thing you’re going to do when you pass is go through one. Let’s try it now – my treat, but no Big Mac Meal or anything”.
He replied “yeah, you’re probably right. My mates will want me to go through one”.
It was interesting to see how he controlled the car (nervously), and how the rules of driving seemed to vapourise when negotiating the chicanes and hairpins of a typical British McDonalds car park during Christmas Week and The Sales at the big retail park we went into.
It was good experience for him, because the next time he does it he’s likely to have a car full of mates with him. Going to McDonalds’ drive thru is a rite of passage, no less important than getting their licences.
We pulled up somewhere close by to eat (I’d chosen the location because we could do a turn in the road after we’d finished) and he remembered the last time I’d taken him there some months ago. The previous night back then had been Prat Night, with all the boy racers and their pratmobiles doing donuts, racing each other, and eating McDonalds for the sole purpose of discarding the wrappings outside the car in the car parks of the industrial units around there. The morning we went, the place was an absolute pig-sty – it was about 20cm deep in McDonalds cartons from one end to the other (the council were there shovelling it up). Since then, they’ve put speed bumps in and the police sometimes close roads in the industrial areas off when they get wind of a Prat-rally being organised.
He said “now we’re just the same as those people who’d been here when we came last time”. I laughed – he had a slight point, although I took the wrappers home and disposed of them there.
But the reason I even mentioned this – and his excellent “memory” of something which had happened ages ago – was an incident that had occurred earlier in the session. I mean, he had remembered all the litter from the Pratfest I’d told him about that had taken place the night before months ago, but when he approached a crossroads with markings identical to those I’ve shown in the diagram here, he didn’t even remember what planet he was on!
Bearing in mind he’s a good driver and should pass his test easily… he just kept his line past some parked cars and ended up straight in the right-turn lane!
I sometimes want to scream when they do this! They know exactly what to do. They don’t do it wrong every time – 99 times out of 100 they do it perfectly. But every now and then their minds just go to sleep and they don’t do anything at all. It’s just something that happens – as it does with 90% of the driving population!
But it’s all part of the fun of being an instructor.
This is an old story from 2011. So much for government ideas – as of 2015 the idea is no nearer coming to anything, and yet it is one of the most important changes they could make to the driving test.
I saw this in the newsfeeds today. It appears that from sometime next year, learners will be allowed on motorways as long as they are with a qualified instructor.
It won’t be compulsory to take motorway lessons (M-lessons), as many learners live too far away from one.
The story also mentions that the trainee (“pink”) licence system is going to change. This is where unqualified or trainee instructors currently teach pupils. It isn’t mentioned precisely how the change will manifest itself (although the story in the Telegraph – see link below – indicates that this will involve PDIs being actually supervised
They’re also talking about scrapping Pass Plus and replacing it with something else. Again, they don’t say what, yet (well, not in this story, anyway).
The story is also covered by MSN Cars and the Telegraph,
What is interesting is that on a certain web forum frequented by young people of “learn to drive” age, a great many of them think that M-lessons for learners are a bad idea… now that they have passed their tests and are world-renowned (in their own imagination) experts in the field of driving. They appear to hold the opinion that if your test is on a Wednesday, you are totally incapable of driving on a motorway on the Tuesday – but an expert at it come Thursday.
The attitude of some young people on that forum clearly illustrates where the real problems lie – and it ain’t due to lack of motorway tuition, of that you can be sure.
Although I mainly approve of M-lessons, I do have some reservations. The first is that having M-lessons is not going to prevent certain young people being prats, because that’s an attitude that comes with the hormones.
Another concern is the quality of the instructor. Let’s be honest about it: some instructors are not that good even now. How will they fare out on the motorway? And since the motorway is an optional lesson subject which, according to Penning, is down to the fact that many people don’t live near one, what will the cheapo instructors choose to do, faced with the prospect of having to drive more miles up one junction of a motorway on a single lesson than they normally do in all of their “10 for £50” ones? And what will those old fossils do, who only teach test routes and local driving to the more challenging learner, and who consider themselves superior to anyone under 60? Will these choose to cover motorways – or will they simply persist in blaming the DSA for everything and throw up excuses?
Further to the previous post, where someone who had been caught speeding was gaining a frightening amount of sympathy from her peers, I did a little research.
You see, young people appear singularly incapable of accepting that they are wrong, and will invoke all manner of pseudo-science (and rap or hip-hop lyrics) to prove their point. They are the modern day equivalent of the Flat Earth Society in this respect.
First of all, I found this Australian study from 1997, titled Travelling Speed and the Risk of Crash Involvement (C. N. Kloeden, A. J. McLean, and G Ponte). It makes very interesting reading – particularly the findings represented by this graph:
What the researchers did was investigate the details associated with a number of crashes, and calculate the relative risk of an injury-accident for various speeds above 60km/h (which is around 40mph). They set the relative risk to 1.0 at exactly 60km/h.
The clear conclusion they drew was that for every 5km/h above 60km/h, the relative risk of an accident involving injury doubled. So at 60km/h it was 1.0, at 65km/h it rose to ~2, at 70km/h it was ~4, and so on. At 85km/h (approximately 55mph) – the upper limit of their study – the relative risk had risen to almost 60.
As the researchers point out, the risk of being involved in a casualty crash is quite low – this graph is relative risk. But the findings are quite clear. They conclude:
Above 60 km/h there is an exponential increase in risk of involvement in a casualty crash with increasing travelling speed such that the risk approximately doubles with each 5km/h increase in travelling speed.
Next, there is a 2005 American report, titled Research Links Speed Increases With Increased Accidents and Accident Severity, Though Lower Speed Increases Only Effect Crashes Marginally (Virginia Department of Transportation). It’s more a collation and summary of the abstracts of numerous data sources than an actual study.
Like the Australian paper, it makes reference to data from 1964, by Solomon. The original graphs are shown on the left, but you can see them in greater detail in the Australian paper.
The top one shows the involvement rate in accidents versus travelling speed – and there is one curve for daytime accidents, and one for nighttime. It is clear that the rate is lowest between 50 and 70mph. It rises exponentially either side of this.
The lower graph shows the involvement rate in accidents versus deviation for the mean speed of the traffic all around (again, one curve for daytime, one for nighttime). The involvement rate is lowest for cars travelling close to the mean speed – in other words, the same speed as everyone else. The greater the deviation, then the greater the involvement rate.
The lower graph explains the upper one. Basically, since most people will be travelling at somewhere around the speed limit, it is those who are deviating grossly – by either driving too fast or too slow – who appear most at risk. It doesn’t matter who is right and who is wrong as far as travelling speed is concerned, because this is just accident involvement, not accident responsibility.
Another American study from 1998, titled Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Speed and Speed Management (Anacapa Sciences, Inc.), includes this comment:
The relationship between vehicle speed and crash severity is unequivocal and based on the laws of physics. The kinetic energy of a moving vehicle is a function of its mass and velocity squared. Kinetic energy is dissipated in a collision by friction, heat, and the deformation of mass. Generally, the more kinetic energy to be dissipated in a collision, the greater the potential for injury to vehicle occupants. Because kinetic energy is determined by the square of the vehicle’s speed, rather than by speed alone, the probability of injury, and the severity of injuries that occur in a crash, increase exponentially with vehicle speed. For example, a 30–percent increase in speed (e.g., from 50 to 65 mi/h [80 to 105 km/h]) results in a 69–percent increase in the kinetic energy of a vehicle.
This is precisely what I have been saying. That the faster you are going, the more serious will be the consequences if you have an accident. And the report adds this:
Solomon [from 1964, again] concluded that crash severity increased rapidly at speeds in excess of 60 mi/h (96 km/h), and the probability of fatal injuries increased sharply above 70 mi/h (112 km/h).
So on the one hand, it would appear that the current UK upper limit of 70mph IS the best in terms of convenience and safety. However, the report also mentions the effects of raising and lowering speed limits around the world in the last 20 years or so. The researchers found the following:
It should be pointed out that some changes appeared to have no significant effect on accidents and fatalities (read the report yourselves), but the majority did. It was clear that increasing speed limits led to anything from a negligible to a dramatic increase in accidents and fatalities (with the exception of one US situation).
Finding this information is easy – and there is much more or it out there. However, what is also clear from reading it is that there is no single factor which governs safety, accidents, or anything else. You can’t just push a button or flip a switch and have everything all nice and comfy – something the DSA needs to take note of the next time it tries to make a silly blanket decisions about ADIs having to sit in on driving tests, and argue that this will reduce fatalities somehow.
I also refer back to an earlier quote, which points out that a 30% increase in speed from 50 to 65mph leads to a 69% increase in the kinetic energy of the vehicle! So just going 15mph faster could potentially lead to you having an accident which is And yet the IAM would have you dangerously believe that speeding is “relatively unimportant” in how accidents occur, whereas our Mickey Mouse government wants to cheaply win votes by increasing our upper motorway speed limit from 70mph to 80mph.
Is it any wonder young people (mentioned in Part I of this topic) have stupid ideas about speeding?
The simple fact is that the faster you go, the less time you have to react – and as a new driver, you already have far less time than you think. You are not perfect, and you most certainly aren’t immortal. The result of this is that any accident you have will be worse – much worse – than if you’d have gone slower.
On a certain web forum frequented by students, someone has written that they were stopped at 2am on the M1 doing 96mph. They want to know how many points they are likely to get.
To be fair to the person, they do appear to be sorry and worried – though I can’t help wonder if that is much of a defence when you are going at a speed which is so far above the legal limit of 70mph. After all, if they hadn’t been caught, they’d still be out there behaving in exactly the same way. But that’s not my point.
Here are some of the typical responses – poor spelling and grammar left as is – from people who apparently represent the future. I will discuss the points highlighted with superscripts later:
thats pretty unlucky because my friend was on there on sunday and clocked up to 146mph and never even saw a, police car.
…96 at 2AM on the countries best motorway. TBH, for me, should be legal. Cars have minor stopping distances1 and amazing technology…
Tbh it’s ridiculous that you even get pulled for that at 2am in the morning.
I’ve done a lot of driving around that time, and there are hardly any other people on the motorway2.It’s not as if you could harm other people…
…Oh, and 100mph.. big boy!! Its a bad ride if the bike doesnt touch 100 at least once on a ride out, and it’ll get there in about 5 seconds if I ask nicely. My licence is clean as well3.
From 100 mph my bike will stop quicker than most cars from 70… The bike is far far more agile than cars at speed due to the small amount of weight which has to change direction. My vision and road awareness is better than most car drivers4.
96 mph is nothing, last time few times iv been driving iv done 104mph on both the M40 and the A38. The only danger here is that my car is only a 0.9 engine and the whole thing starts vibrating like itl fall apart at any second5. Iv also been caught for speeding after half a year driving, a year and a half ago doing 50ish through a 30 in a place called milford common near stafford and i got three points, although in fairness to me, it was one of those 50 areas which is suddenly a 30 for about 500m.
Also, an excuse iv used before when cautioned by an officer is that I had a nut allergy6 and i had to get to a hospital quickly or id die. That works, so try it out!!!
It’s safe to go well over 100 at 2am7, tbh.
My dad just did one for going over 100mph on the motorway; was a £60 fine and £120 for the course, and much worse a waste of 3-4 hours of your time (they really take back the time u saved by speeding), but crucially 0 points.
Oh be apologetic and sorry in court ye 8
When my mate did it, He didn’t even bother stopping for the popo, Lol he got a fine and 6 month driving ban 9
The very first quote just illustrates the mentalities of these people. At best, they are a few months out of nappies, and it is all one big boast for them. I should point out, of course, that not all young drivers are like this – but the ones that are certainly screw things up for the rest.
Even if they try and argue their corner (1), they are frequently just wrong. This character reckons that cars have “minor stopping distances”. Well, at 96mph the overall stopping distance would be around 560 feet, or 170 metres (at best). That’s about 40 car lengths, or about 100 bicycle lengths, or over 500 pedestrian lengths… it would take you nearly 3 minutes to walk that far! Hardly a “minor” distance, is it?
Then there is the frequent comment (2) that it is “quiet” at 2am (or whenever), and at those times you should be allowed to do whatever speed you wish. I’m sure that fog, unlit sections of road, debris on the carriageway, potholes, foxes, deer, broken down vehicles, other drivers who don’t realise how fast the prat behind is going and so pull out, and so on all cease to be a factor at 2am in the morning. Or not, as the case may be. And this same idiot goes on to say that “it’s not as if you could harm other people”. And another one (7) states that going at that speed at 2am is “safe”.
As well as the general stupidity of many of the younger driving generation, there is always one who stands out as more stupid than the rest (3). The fact he is also a motorbike rider is surely just a coincidence..? He brags about doing 100mph regularly, otherwise it is a “bad ride”, and he is serious. He also brags about having a clean licence, as if this means what he is doing is somehow OK. He also makes the ridiculous statement (4) about his bike being “more agile” than a car and himself having better road awareness than anyone else.
Another boaster (5) even provides location information about his achievements. He makes it clear he has been caught before on several occasions, and has even lied (6) to avoid prosecution. If the police look in, I’d suggest following that one up because many of these people really shouldn’t be driving, and a chance to remove one of them from the roads without having to go outside ought to be appealing to them.
Yet another boaster (8) provides tips on how to behave in court to get a softer sentence. His father has recently been prosecuted for doing over 100mph on the motorway, so he obviously provides a superb role model for this little cretin.
And finally, another boaster (9) – who is obviously impressed by the impetuosity of his friend, who was fined and banned for “doing it” (“it” presumably being driving at 100mph or more).
What is important to realise here is that not a single one of these morons will have been taught to drive like that. They behave like this through choice, and when they start taking lessons many of them just yearn for the day they’ll be able to break free of the leash and go and behave like prats, under the impression that it’s cool and boastworthy. This is where the authorities are so far out of touch with reality that you really do despair. They think that things like forcing the instructor to sit in on tests is going to alter the way people choose to behave. They think that suddenly calling driving instruction “coaching” will sort out the problems, and then idiots who will gladly jump on any bandwagon that they think makes being an ADI something that it isn’t – with buzzwords like “life coaching”, “life skills”, “client-centred learning”, and so on – almost wet themselves trying to peddle their “enhanced” services as a result.
Going back to Mr Fantastic Motorbike Rider who I quoted above, he is typical of the vast majority of his kind – and by “kind”, I mean young motorcycle riders and motorists. He’s the best at everything, knows more than everyone else (even people who are experts), has faster reactions than Superman, and his bike is almost as good – apparently being able to go from 100-0mph over what would appear to be about 10m, if you believe his bullshit. He says in another one of his posts:
Doing 96mph on its own presents no more risk than doing 70mph. The problem comes from other traffic, and the weather/road conditions. I dont like your immediate assumption that because the speed is X it is so much more dangerous than speed Y. Not true. You could very very easily get conditions which are safer at 90, than different conditions at 70. For example a busy road with occasional slow moving traffic and heavy rain at 70mph is more dangerous than doing 100 down an empty 3 lane motorway in clear, dry conditions.
This is actually frightening. That someone so unintelligent should be allowed to drive a motor vehicle of any kind, believing that driving at 100mph is no more dangerous than driving at 70mph. To make matters worse, he is echoing some of the idiotic rhetoric that certain anorak advanced driving groups have been advocating in order to flex their political muscle.
I’ve never had to look this up, but I have always known that having an accident increases in severity the faster you are going. It’s just the application of simple physical laws – like a pedestrian colliding with a post can result in anything from embarrassment (if they just step into it) to a hospital stay (if they run into it and knock themselves out).
If you lose control of a car at 70mph you might spin, bounce off the barrier, and even roll the car over (which is obviously bad enough); but lose control at 100mph and you’re likely to go through the barrier, or over it, and into the path of other traffic, barrel-roll down the embankment, and probably disintegrate the car as you do it. People will be sellotaping flowers with your name on them to lamp posts. This is because there is more energy to get rid of before you stop.
But that’s not all there is to it. There are the small matters of reaction time and control even before the accident actually occurs.
The faster you’re traveling, the more difficult it is to keep the vehicle under control – this is yet again down to simple laws of physics. You see, if you are driving at 30mph on a typical road, in typical conditions, in a typical car, and you suddenly steer to avoid a pothole or something, the car will simply deviate in the direction you steer. At 70mph the borderline between keeping control and losing it is much closer because there is sufficient energy for a skid. At 100mph there is more than enough energy for a skid and even a slight overreaction could lead to loss of control – someone pulling out who doesn’t realise that you’re caning it, for example.
To make matters worse, further simple physics means that the faster you approach a hazard the less time you have to think about it. Adding a little human biology makes the risk of error greater the less time you have to think. At 30mph, even if you hit a pothole you’d not lose control. At 70mph, you’d have time to steer around it. At 100mph – with all the other things going on in your head – you probably wouldn’t even see it.
This has turned into a long article. I have some scientific data to discuss, so I’ll put it in a separate post (which is here).
I found this on the Android Market today – it’s a theory test app from the AA.
The free version lets you try out 70 of the question bank questions, but the full version has all of them. The full version only costs £1.99, and it has a nice, clean design and interface.
I assume that it will auto-update when the questions change, since the spiel says it is good for tests after 2008 (which implies it is the current question bank, which will be valid until the end of the year).
From January 2012, the questions will no longer be exactly those on the actual test – this app is at pains to point out that those it contains ARE the same as on the theory test proper.
I’m going to start mentioning it to my pupils. I can’t see anyone having a problem spending £1.99 on practising for their theory test – though I’m sure some will resent even that, and will still try the free route whenever they can.
I also can’t wait to see what the ADI glitterati have to say about it when they find out. The screenshot above is NOT the full display – it scrolls down – but I bet some prat will try and argue that it is a steep hill DOWNWARDS (it is), and the AA is wrong.
This is just one of several similar apps you can get for practising the theory test questions – you choose whatever suits you.
I saw this in ADI News this month. Someone has reviewed a “free booklet” which is being given away by He-Man, titled: The Use and Abuse of Dual Controls. It’s written by some guy called Professor Peter Russell.
Although the ADI News review doesn’t say, the booklet can be downloaded from He-Man’s website using the link above. He-Man, of course, is a major supplier of dual controls for instructor cars. The reviewer cleverly takes issue with some of the author’s very specific claims and statements about dual controls, whilst trying to remain objective. Reading between the lines, it is clear he doesn’t agree.
My first impression was that the author is one of those people who, like Idi Amin in the 1970s, lives for titles and certificates. Amin gave himself the title “His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular” (he wasn’t VC, DSO, or MC). The author in this case lists “Master of Arts in Advanced Driver Education (1997); Doctor of Professional Studies in CPD in Education (2001); Fellow of the Institute of Master Tutors of Driving (1969-2011); Chief Examiner AEB /AQA Diploma in Driver Education (1983-2011); Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Educational Assessors (2003-2011); Tutor of NHS Counselling, Coaching and Mentoring Degree Courses (2002-11); Member of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (1980-2011)”. It appears that he WAS teaching in the 70s, so read into that what you will.
It’s worth pointing out that some people have A levels and degrees in “Critical Thinking”, “David Beckham Studies”, “General Studies”, “Celebrity Journalism”, “Drama Combined with Waste Management”, “International Football Business Management”, and so on. A lecturer in these subjects could easily become a “professor”.
I think you can see my point, here. So, anyway…
Much of the booklet is just information and statistics. But there are some outrageous statements in there. To start with:
…each case where the examiner takes action is a terrible indictment of the skills (or otherwise) of a relatively few ADIs.
Remember that, then. If you ever get an ETA for one of your pupils, it is a “terrible indictment” on your skills (or lack, thereof) as an ADI. He even reckons that the test SHOULD be abandoned at that point (so a walkback). This is an idiotic blanket statement, and is plain nonsense except in a small number of cases.
Apparently:
Any instructor may occasionally bring a pupil on test who suffers from nerves to such an extent they cannot cope. This may happen say once or twice a year…
That girl I once taught who took five tests before coming to me, and four with me before passing, and whom we had to stop for on test day for her to be physically sick, must be another “terrible indictment” on my skills as an instructor. The real facts are that about 80-90% of pupils are absolutely shitting themselves when they take their tests, and quite how this manifests itself out there with the examiner on the day is not going to be decided by some old geezer with an ego problem.
But this part is just utter nonsense:
First of all there is an absolute need to establish two basic teaching principles:
- Dual controls are not an aid to teaching; they are a safeguard, only for use when learning needs are overcome by safety considerations
- Instructors who make excessive use of dual controls, are obviously not suited to the job
That first one is just complete crap. If wearing full clown make-up and big clown shoes worked as a tool for teaching people, some fossil saying you should only wear a suit and tie would not alter that fact. Exactly the same is true here.
It is an absolute and definite fact that, if using the dual controls for teaching and demonstration purposes can be beneficial, then they should be used as necessary. The author of the booklet is totally wrong to state otherwise, and is expressing an opinion only.
The second point is, again, a poorly worded and badly expressed blanket statement. If an ADI is forever using the duals to prevent imaginary problems, then I agree that overuse in that case would be a problem – though I would stop short of such idiotic statements about his or her suitability for the job without knowing a lot more personal details.
It is clear that the author has some sort of historical love affair with BSM. Apparently it was THEY who had this nonsense in their training manual in 1980. So what the author is neglecting to mention and explain (or doesn’t understand) is that all we have is BSM’s bespoke internal training manual – not a Universal Law – that dates from more than 30 years ago! You can guess where he started out, can’t you?
As an aside, he bemoans the “sale” of BSM to the AA for a nominal “£1”. So, something else he doesn’t understand, either – the fact that that “nominal” sum effectively purchased a huge number of debts and liabilities.
You can make your own mind up about the rest of it. Some of it might actually turn out to be useful for some people, seeing that it is basically a “how to be an ADI” manual from someone with very old-fashioned (30-year+) views, and who apparently hates the profession as it stands today – but some of the crass opinions expressed as fact in it make it completely unreliable as a reference manual of any sort.
I was on a lesson last week and a pupil asked me when I get time off. I explained that I tend to consider cancellations as “time off”, or I might keep a day free now and again. I then added that when you do a job you enjoy, it isn’t actually like work – so it isn’t particularly stressful and you get relaxation, job satisfaction, and you get paid.
He said that that was a great way to look at things.
Mind you, work isn’t all play and job satisfaction no matter how enjoyable it is overall. Some pupils really make you work for your money.
I’ve got one at the moment whose first language isn’t English. In fact, English might not feature in the top ten list of languages she’s even heard of! She’d had 10 lessons previously, but her last instructor had “gone away” and she’d wanted to carry on learning. Getting much more detail wasn’t easy.
To start with, she isn’t a natural driver, and as we progressed – after yet another failed attempt to mount a pavement and cull some pedestrians – a thought suddenly occurred to me. I pulled her over and, with much wording and rewording, discovered that she didn’t know what was meant by the following words and phrases (and I mean in the literal sense):
The list goes on and on, and I am absolutely convinced that whenever I say anything to her – be it a question, a statement, or an instruction – all she hears is “mwah-mwah-mwah-MWAH-mwah” (watch The Simpsons, Episode 216 to understand that). It would certainly explain why I didn’t seem to be getting anywhere with her.
On lessons, I have to stop and rack my brain finding ways of conveying even the simplest of instruction. Her mind just can’t take it in on the move. I’ll perhaps say “ease off the gas”, and I end up with whiplash from the resulting emergency stop. Or I’ll say “off the brake, off the brake” (frequently in a higher pitch than usual as I grab the wheel and seek to avoid a pedestrian or cyclist) as we steer sharply and unnecessarily away from a lorry or bus she has reacted to three lanes away travelling in the opposite direction. Almost every time I say “check your mirrors” it will immediately result in a randomly chosen indicator – in fact, even when she really should indicate the actual direction appears to be a random choice. If we approach any junction, her hand will go down for the handbrake, then the gears, then the handbrake again, then she’ll slam on the footbrake, declutch, then bring the clutch up while the footbrake is still on and we’re nearly stopped, resulting in a stall.
The whole situation is made all the more frustrating by the fact that she wants to pass quickly, and so is trying to book lessons just about every day. I don’t have too much of a problem with that, except that she recently filled up all my prime daytime slots, then got ill and cancelled them for five days – all at short notice. Last week, she didn’t tell me that she was taking her theory test at the same time as a lesson (she swears she did, but I have absolutely no recollection of any conversation that amounted to a cancellation), so I turned up and she didn’t show. When I tried to explain that it causes me to lose money and to think about that next time – which took the characteristic age to get across – she didn’t appear to have a clue (or concern) what I was talking about.
Ironically, she turned up for that first theory test without her licence counterpart, so she couldn’t take it.
Then, on her last lesson – that would be the one where she emerged from a side road and “forgot” that she needed to straighten the wheels after a sharp turn and not hit the gas, so we ended up partially on the pavement and narrowly missing (I used the duals) hitting one of those YOUR SPEED IS signs – she asked (and this is the translation I arrived at after careful questioning) “if I pass my theory test next week can I book my practical?”
I just said “No. You’re nowhere near ready.”
Things never change, do they?
On a forum (frequented by learners and young people), a lot of ridiculous advice is bandied about. The latest has to do with which gear to choose when turning left or right into junctions:
You should only go into 1st if you reach a complete stop. Otherwise 2nd is the correct gear.
Even better, the person who wrote this has got SIX thumbs up for it – even though it is totally wrong, and utterly misleading for new drivers out there. What makes it even more worrying is that judging from some of the replies, a lot of learners are being taught precisely this by their instructors!
It is wrong!
The same genius who wrote the above advice responds like this when it is pointed out that going too slow (but not stopped) in 2nd gear could lead to a stutter or stall, or “runaway” if the brake is released on the turn:
What the hell car do you drive? I’ve never heard of a car with such a high 2nd gear that it can’t handle speeds all the way down to 1mph, unless you’re on the kind of extremely steep incline only found in national parks.
A car that can do 1mph in 2nd? Another poster states clearly:
My car is a 1.4 and it struggles in second if I go below 8mph.
Of course, this factual information is wasted on the genius who thinks he know it all. My Focus will also start to rumble if you pull it below about 10mph in 2nd, and the same applies to most other cars. The genius backs his advice up with the comment:
Anyway, google it. You will find 100 people repeating my advice for everyone who says that 1st is the appropriate gear for rolling through junctions. Or look in a roadcraft manual.
There’s a strange irony going on here. Someone who is so ill-informed that he considers 100 people on a Google search is proof that he is correct also mentions Roadcraft. I’m not sure if “oxymoron” is strictly correct for describing this, but it’s definitely something like that.
It always makes me laugh how there are facts, and then there are people who believe something else. Like The Flat Earth Society, or people who believe in aliens or ghosts or something. Crackpots.
You DO NOT only use 1st gear when you are stopped. You learn the characteristics of the car you’re driving, learn to read the road layout and any gradients, and then choose the appropriate gear for the speed you are doing, and the situation you are in.
For example, when pulling away, you can do it in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. You’d use 2nd if you were starting off downhill, and 2nd or 3rd if you were moving off on sheet ice or snow and were encountering wheel spins. Most of the time, of course, you’d use 1st.
Exactly the same is true of turning left or right into roads. If you can keep moving much above a brisk walking pace then you can get away 2nd gear easily (and sometimes, even 3rd if the turn is a wide one). Any slower and you need to consider something else. Of course, 1st is the obvious choice below 2nd – but is there any other option?
In fact, there is. Imagine driving along a straight road and coming up to a queue of cars – maybe due to traffic lights or someone turning right and causing a temporary tailback. You’d slow down, and you may actually be getting ready to stop – but then the traffic starts moving and you don’t have to. Depending on how slow you were going governs which gear you are in, but it could easily be 2nd gear. Think about what you’d do.
As you aim to come to a stop you’d put the clutch down (you’re going slowly, remember)… but then you change your mind and use gas/bite – yes, in 2nd gear – to start moving again. Another “expert” on the forum I mentioned states:
Who taught you to drive?
You never slip the clutch in a car unless you’re in first gear and in slow moving traffic. The only occasion you’d do what you were suggesting is if you were on a motorbike where it is common practice to slip the clutch.
There’s no limit to their ignorance, it seems! For my part, I am trying hard to imagine the problems that you’d have driving in accordance with these guys’ principles. I mean, imagine only using 1st gear when you’re stopped and never de-clutching/finding the bite while still rolling in 2nd. Imagine, for example, driving along slowly in heavy stop-start traffic during rush hour using their principles. It would be chaos – you’d be forever changing gear and annoying the crap out of cars behind keep stopping dead!
So applying all this to a corner – one that is sharper than most, for example, but not so sharp that you obviously must do it in 1st – you have two options:
It isn’t coasting, because the engine is driving the car. It is making full use of the gears and the handling characteristics of the car. It isn’t dangerous. And it has advantages over 1st gear in that the gear ratio is such that losing traction in adverse conditions is less likely due to engine surge (either from the EMS or from touching the gas pedal).
Either way works. The second option is much smoother, though.
Remember that if you go round a corner with the clutch all the way down, you will get a fault (at least) on your test. If you use the 2nd gear method I have described… well, it never attracts a fault at either of my test centres.
Just as a final comment, you must use the appropriate gear for the speed you are doing. You can’t just opt for a fixed method for all situations, because all corners are different and road conditions can vary throughout the year.