Category - DSA

Instructor Rips Off Driving Test Hopefuls

This came in on the newsfeeds, and tells how ex-driving instructor, Mark Netherway, set up a scam where he was charging his pupils £62 for a “driving test” and £38 for the hire of his car.

Except that the “test” was a carefully concealed mock test conducted by another driving instructor, with absolutely no chance of anyone getting a licence out of it.

The instructor carrying out the mock tests was apparently totally innocent. That strikes me as odd, because if another instructor was paying me to do a mock test on one of his pupils I’m pretty sure that that’s the first thing I’d mention when I met them. But that’s just me – as I’ve said before, some instructors really get off on dressing up and pretending to be examiners, so I suppose it’s possible that if one of these anorak-types was doing it the whole affair could go unnoticed.

The story has also been picked up on the forums and, as usual, everything is apparently the DSA’s fault. Just a couple of comments on this.

First of all, if anyone actually bothered to read the report properly, they would see that Netherway’s defence lawyer said:

He was making a success of it [being an ADI] but his livelihood is now lost to him.

“Lost to him” means that he is no longer an instructor. So people should stop trying to suggest that he might be allowed to get away with it by the big, bad DSA.

And secondly, just about every newly qualified ADI – and especially those who hyperventilate when they are going to do a mock test and get to dress up in a hi-vis jacket – has desperately wanted to get their hands on blank DL25 (Driving Test) Marking Sheets. The DSA went through a phase a couple of years ago where they even placed piles of them in test centre waiting rooms – it was entertaining to see ADIs scoop up handfuls of them. Obviously it was essential to conduct mock tests with a real sheet instead of a copy.

But according to some it would appear that the DSA is at fault for this, too. It seems that Netherway’s stupidity and dishonesty is down to the DSA making DL25s available to ADIs! A far more logical (but still wrong) conclusion would be that all ADIs are inherently dishonest and untrustworthy, and cannot be trusted with copies of the blank DL25 sheet! Or that mock tests are at the root of the problem!

Hey, this is fun! Making up blame using illogical assumptions based on prejudice.

DSA Website Moved To GOV.UK

An email alert from the DSA confirms that the DSA website is now part of the larger GOV.UK site.

You can find the GOV.UK site here, or the DSA part in particular here.

Drivers, learner drivers, or ADIs/PDIs looking for information should go to this section (it’s under Driving, Transport & Travel on the main GOV.UK page) for information.

The online Highway Code is here.

The site is easy to navigate, and the information is clearly presented. No longer do you have to go the DVLA website for one thing, the DSA for another, and so on.

Of course, we await the emergence of another group of Wat Tylers to find fault with it, and to ignore the fact that it is a government initiative, not a DSA one. The DSA had little choice but to move – and the fact that they’ve moved cleanly and tidily is a huge bonus. The new site is far easier to use than the old DSA one.

Can You Practice Bay Parking At Colwick MPTC?

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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!