Another hot story is the one about raising the age at which people can take their tests to 18. As I mentioned in this article, there are plans to introduce a graded licence system and to introduce various restrictions on new drivers. So it is a little surprising to hear what the AA president, Edmund King, has to say after casting doubt on the plan:
What we’d like to see is to teach people to drive more carefully before they pass their test.
I think Mr King is about as far above the actual process of teaching “people to drive” as it’s possible to get. In other words, totally out of touch with reality. No one down at the sharp end with an ounce of intelligence would believe it were that simple. It’s wishy-washy nonsense.
The fact – and it IS a fact, Mr King – is that new drivers have already been taught how to drive properly. They’ve already been taught how to drive carefully. The fact that they do not is down to their experience, maturity, and upbringing. It is impossible to reconcile the first two without the passage of time. Experience takes time to develop, as does maturity.
The most mature 17-year old in the world could still be involved in an accident because of inexperience. And the most experienced 17-year old (if such existed) could still have an accident as a result of immaturity. It is a basic Law of Nature. It has held true since the first written records of human history, and it has persisted until the present.
And still you get people who think that a few namby-pamby words can make it all all right.
New drivers need to be kept out of certain high-risk situations until they have developed experience and maturity. It’s not as if these new proposals want to wrap them in cotton wool or anything – the aim is just to keep cars full of immature prats off the roads, especially at night, in the face of overwhelming evidence to support it.
That previous (well, previous to the previous) story about tests only being carried out in English from next year is hot news at the moment. A follow up story from the Beeb tells how Allyson Ng cheated on tests she was acting as interpreter for by giving the answers to pupils. The licences of 94 people were revoked as a result. Her operation was mainly based in Cardiff, with a small number in Birmingham.
Ng was charging people £110 a time for her “services”. DSA staff became suspicious when there was a sudden upturn in those using her.
She was jailed for 12 months for fraud.
However, this story illustrates one big reason why it is important that foreign language tests are eliminated as soon as possible.
Much of it is a rehash of what has been said before. However, it is worth taking a look at the TRL paper it’s based on, because that is quite new and it outlines all the proposals to be considered. I just wish they’d talk in English instead of convoluted gov-speak. Attempting to sift out the important bits, we have:
graduated driving licence
minimum learning period
mandatory daytime and night time lessons
mandatory training log book
12-month probationary licence on passing the test at age 18+
mandatory P plates during probationary period
night time 10pm-5pm curfew unless accompanied by someone 30+ years old
ban on carrying passengers under age 30
lower alcohol limit
ban on use of mobile phones (including hands-free)
Let’s hope they get off their arses and do something before we all die of old age!
An American story from the newsfeeds has concluded that car crashes are a “leading threat” to pregnant drivers. My understanding is that their next major aim is to report on the fact that water is wet and fire is hot.
Being a mother on the go isn’t easy, or without risks. In fact, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of trauma to pregnant women. Plus, crashes during those nine months result in higher rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes such as preterm birth, stillbirth, and placental abruption, according to a new study by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
I love that word “preventative”. Because prevention – at the least in the obvious sense – is absolutely the last thing on their list of recommendations. In fact, the only thing they do seem interested in is stating the bleeding obvious.
The results found that 2.9 percent of pregnant drivers were involved in one or more crashes. After one crash there was an increased rate of adverse outcomes and a second crash saw that rate increase.
You can hear the collective sound of millions of people slapping their foreheads and going “Of course! How could we have been so stupid?” Or not, as the case may be.
It appears that not much is needed to impress the Americans, and concluding that you increase the risk of a problem if you’re pregnant each time you have a crash is obviously one of them. Of course, any sensible person would realise that it is a risk that cannot be eliminated unless you don’t drive in the first place.
This story somehow managed to spam the newsfeeds, coming in numerous times. The title of the piece laughingly trumpets that the source is an “expert instructor”.
To start with, there is no such thing as an “expert instructor”, and those claiming to be such are guaranteed to be much further away from the imagined finishing line than they believe they are. In this case, our erstwhile “expert” is merely the chairman of the local chapter of the Driving Instructors’ Association (DIA). But let’s take a look at what the story says – it’s from those irritating This Is… local news websites who throw stories together using a food blender.
The crux of the story is that this “expert” reckons “newly qualified drivers must be kept from fast roads until they get enough experience under their belts.”
Let’s just clarify again for our “expert” the true statistics. The vast majority of accidents involving “new” drivers tick the following boxes:
driver aged 24 or under
car full of mates
at night
on rural roads
on a bend
no other car involved
Reading between the lines, you have lack of experience sitting on one side of the scales, and the belief that they know it all on the other – and the scales are heavily tipped to the latter position. Reading further into it, you also have the deplorable underlying attitude of many typical sub-24-year olds.
Our “expert” appears to be campaigning for learners to be allowed on motorways. I agree with that, but for totally different reasons. How does he think this is going to be applied to all learners? A huge number live nowhere near a motorway and couldn’t possibly do lessons on one (at best, they might get on one once for a few miles). But he is quoted:
It’s not necessarily that young people are speeding, it’s that they may be going too fast for the road circumstances.
Quite. And they do that on rural or town roads – not on motorways, where bends are gentle and general visibility of the road ahead is usually good. That’s why those statistics about accidents I gave above are so significant. What’s more, the article is in This Is Gloucestershire – a county known for the number of rural roads within in – and is part of a campaign being run by that news source commemorating the number of young drivers killed on Gloucestershire’s roads.
So the unworkable solution being suggested would have to involve keeping all new drivers off all except non-NSL (National Speed Limit) A roads.
On the other hand, of course, Gloucestershire’s appalling young driver accident record could just have something more to do with the number of rural roads it has, and the attitudes of many of its drivers. And not the fact that they haven’t been taken on motorways when they’re taking driving lessons.
Thanks to a reader who gave me the heads up on this story. Details are sketchy at the moment, but it seems that an 84-year old woman managed to get on the wrong carriageway of the A1 up in Northumberland, and this led to several collisions, one of which resulted in serious injuries to two of the occupants. The elderly woman herself was killed.
If you search for “elderly drivers” on this site, you’ll find numerous stories regarding accidents they have caused (and related topics). As far as my interest goes, it all began with the tragic case of Cassie McCord, who was killed in 2011 by an elderly maniac who shouldn’t have been on the road in the first place, but who was allowed to be so (the Law had no power to stop him back then).
If you didn’t already realise it, I have a very low opinion of people who continue to drive even after age has caught up with them – even lower than my opinion of people who continue to drive after evolution has indicated they shouldn’t.
EDIT:More details in this local article. The incident happened near to Morpeth at around 3.50pm on Saturday. One of those injured is in a serious condition, and another is also serious – but not with life-threatening injuries. The story is also covered by the Express. Details remain sketchy as police continue their enquiries, and are appealing for witnesses.
Last year I wrote about Alcopal – an internet snake oil medicine that claimed to be able to make people pass the breathalyser test even if they’d drunk around five pints of beer. The posts relating to it are listed below:
The articles remain popular – with an inordinate number of people finding it on search terms indicating that they are looking to use Alcopal rather than read about it, and many of those originating from Poland (make of that what you will).
Another blogger, JosephineJones, has picked up on it. As a result of that I discovered a news story I hadn’t seen before. It dates from January this year, and is mainly concerned with an alleged gun incident involving Arthur Kibble – the “entrepreneur” with the dubious distinction of being the man who introduced Alcopal to the UK. However, a few more titbits can be gleaned from the story.
I didn’t realise that Kibble was an ex-policeman. But even more entertaining are his latest comments.
He now states that Alcopal…
…stops alcohol entering the blood stream, re-directing it to the kidneys.
This is bollocks. To get to the kidneys it would HAVE to get into the blood stream. And if neat alcohol got anywhere near your kidneys, it would destroy them! He goes on…
I am not advocating that motorists get blind drunk and then try to drive…
So why are you bloody selling it? And he continues…
And I must stress that these tablets do nothing to improve the performance of a driver who has been drinking…
So the only thing they do is MASK alcohol, otherwise they WOULD lead to an improvement in performance.
But the best part is that Kibble was selling these things at £35 for 5 tablets. The actual cost price for that number of tablets, containing “herbal” ingredients and carbon, would be infinitesimally small. Even Viagra only costs about £1-£2 per tablet from dodgy online retailers – the cost price to pharmacies is much less. Kibble somehow rated Alcopal at £7 a pop!
But better still is the fact that for Alcopal to “work”, you need to take three tablets before you drink, and two after. So it will cost you £35 on top of the £10 you spent on booze.
It would be far simpler either to not drink – or not drive. A taxi or the bus would be a lot cheaper.
This snippet from the Southend Standard is interesting. It says that in an “unprecedented” move, police arrested 80 boy racers for illegal street racing in Thurrock. They are due to appear in court later this month.
It is such a large operation that Basildon Magistrates’ court has been set aside to just deal with this one issue for an entire day!
Although it’s unlikely, one would hope that every one of them is banned from driving, ordered to take an extended retest, and to have their cars crushed. Because let’s face it: this will be a badge of honour for most of them, and as soon as Friday night comes around again they’ll be back out there doing whatever it is they do, for whatever reasons they do it.
I’ve seen them in Nottingham at the Victoria Retail Park. Even late in the evening, when the roads down there are fairly quiet, they would much rather park right on a roundabout and then stand there trying to look cool than go and park somewhere sensible. It’s just so they can be seen (and possibly for some shady sexual reason best known to themselves).
What are the policies for service in the drive thru lanes?
Q: i have a serious question for you what is the polices for your drive thru i was refused service because i came thru on a bicycle in the drive thru and there is nothing stating that bicycle are allowed and will be refused service i would like to know why that is because i am seriously offended
A: Thanks for your question. McDonald’s drive thru is for people in motor vehicles only, bicycles are not permitted on our drive thru due to the health and safety policies we have in place.
Of course, being in The Mail, it is obviously McDonalds who are in the wrong.
The idiot in question this time was one of those clowns who rides around with a baby-buggy trailer on his bike. In this particular case, he had his 4-year old son in the damned thing. I wonder what publicity he’d now be seeking if he’d have been hit by a motorist who didn’t see the bloody thing sticking out behind?
The funny thing is that the prat waited in the queue of cars for 15 minutes before reaching the window. He’d have gotten served in less than five minutes if he’d have simply gone inside. He displays the sort of logic common to cyclists:
I was baffled. If my bike is safe enough for the road, surely it is safe enough for a drive-thru in a car park with a 5mph limit? It’s a daft policy.
I’ll wager that it doesn’t take much to baffle him under normal circumstances if he finds this one confusing.
The Mail has got plenty of pictures of him at the drive-thru – all set up for the occasion, of course. And they quote a Health & Safety Executive (HSE) spokesman:
[he] said there was no legislation preventing cyclists from using a drive-thru.
‘McDonald’s should state the real reason for turning away cyclists rather than using health and safety as a catch-all…”
McDonalds has not said that there WAS legislation, nor have they used it as a “catch-all”. They make it clear that it is THEIR policy on health & safety grounds. See the difference? You have “Health & Safety” with capitals, and “health & safety” in lower case – one is a pile of idiotic bureaucracy, and the other an attempt to apply common sense whilst still being bound by idiotic rules from the other. See if you can work out which one’s which. I also wonder if that HSE clown would have argued the same about the silly cow on the horse?
And in any case, if a cyclist WAS to be injured at a drive-thru, the HSE would be all over McDonalds like a rash. And by that, I mean a sudden and really nasty rash – not the lingering, long-term rash that the HSE is to businesses the rest of the time.
It appears that McDonalds has got a real problem with people of restricted intelligence trying to use the drive-thrus. The Mail’s story mentions how last month it turned away a 76-year old on a mobility scooter from a branch. McDonald’s apparently apologised – but they shouldn’t have.
You often hear ADIs going on about only teaching people the bare minimum of skills required to pass the driving test instead of teaching them how to drive properly. The DSA’s strapline is “Safe Driving for Life”. So it beggars belief when you see a story like this.
On the surface, it’s just another FOI request blown out of proportion by some local hacks. But the really frightening part is the case studies they’ve dug up.
The article reports that Failsworth test centre has the lowest pass rate in Manchester, at 39.2% (bolstered by a really funny (not) reference to the name). It points out that Hyde test centre is 16% higher than this, at about 55%. As I mentioned recently, no one is ever prepared to refer to the population demographics in the areas they are comparing. Failsworth (marked as “A” on the map), being much closer to the centre of Manchester (and virtually part of Oldham), has a much higher proportion of non-UK national citizens. Hyde (marked as “B”) is out in the sticks, even though it is still part of Greater Manchester. Indeed, it is only about 6 miles from Glossop – which is so rural not everyone has electricity there yet! The article also says that Buxton – 25 miles out into the countryside – has a pass rate of 61.4%. Obviously, higher pass rates are the story editors’ only focus – but it does illustrate my point.
But here’s the best part. They give several examples. Firstly, someone called Kate Emmott failed at Failsworth, and is now planning on taking her test at an “easier” test centre. She says that she got a “major” fault (marked as “serious” on the test sheet) for not driving in a bus lane. She says:
It was coming up to 10am and I was worried about it. I think I had a really strict tester to be honest.
If Manchester’s bus lanes are anything like the ones around here, their morning hours of operation are 7.30-9.30. Being “nearly” 10am is not the same as 9.30am, and failing to realise this is not the result of a “strict” examiner. It’s the result of being a bad driver.
Then there is the case of Emily Bleackley, who failed her test four times in Failsworth, and then passed “weeks later” in Hyde. The report says:
…her second fail last December was for ‘getting lost’, while her third attempt was scuppered when she slowed down to let a car pass. Her fourth attempt was down to bad ‘filtering’ with other traffic, she says.
So here’s someone else who cannot equate bad driving with failing your test. You don’t fail for “getting lost” – unless you get lost and then make bad mistakes. Slowing down to let people pass – probably on a busy road, since we’re talking almost the centre of Manchester – is dangerous and the sign of a frightened rabbit! And “bad filtering” almost certainly means not being aware of what others are doing, and changing lanes without proper safety checks. In spite of this, Ms Bleackley says:
…[my] instructor could not understand [my] fails either… She said she couldn’t believe I’d failed because my driving was completely up to standard. I was in tears after my tests at Failsworth.
I’m sorry, Emily, but you listed at least three good reasons why your fails were totally justified, and it is shocking that your instructor thought you were “up to standard” if you were so obviously unable to cope with other traffic. You weren’t up to standard – that’s why you failed, and for reasons which are absolutely clear. And it is worrying that you subsequently passed at a test centre where you’re shortcomings perhaps weren’t challenged. Are you going to drive exactly the way you did on those failed tests now you’ve got your licence? Like not driving in bus lanes, slowing to a crawl when you get scared, and weaving from lane to lane without checking first?
The DSA is quoted as saying:
Pass rates can be influenced by various factors. Some people may take more lessons and be better prepared for the test. Statistical factors can also play a part as the number of tests conducted at different test centres varies significantly.
However, every driving test is conducted to the same strict requirements. We train examiners to a high standard and closely monitor their work to ensure that all tests are assessed consistently across the country.
But nothing can hide the fact that some test centres – and their routes – are inevitably going to be easier, and this is always going to result in some people passing their tests when they have underlying issues with their driving. Although it isn’t the DSA’s fault, the two examples above provide clear evidence that two very substandard new drivers have been put on the roads by the system – and it is therefore the system which is at fault. Unfortunately, the system is too complex to be able to reliably identify every single variable involved, and it is left to people like Ms Bleackley and her driving instructor to open their mouths and provide the necessary pointers to where some of the faults with it might lie.
Another news story adds weight to this, and I’ll put an article about that together shortly.
instructor”.
her horse into the restaurant, whereupon it crapped on the floor – probably as a result of being frightened – while people were eating. Well, 
On the surface, it’s just another FOI request blown out of proportion by some local hacks. But the really frightening part is the case studies they’ve dug up.