Category - Bad Drivers

RED Doesn’t Know What It’s Talking About

EDIT: I’ve changed the title to one that Red might not want showing up as No. 1 on my Popular Posts list on the left! I’ve noticed that this post has been deliberately forced to stay at the top by someone keep visiting it for several days, even though it is a pretty mundane story in itself. I suspect someone is after a bit of free advertising. (As soon as I did that, the visits stopped. Odd, eh?)

RED driving school has apparently “released” some “research” – but I really think someone needs to explain to them what “research” actually is in truly scientific terms.

As I’ve mentioned in several recent posts, it is Road Safety Week, and every organisation and his dog is anxious to climb aboard the band wagon and get some valuable publicity out of it. Some are making a better job of it than others.

Let’s just state some facts, here. Young drivers make up about 12% of the driving population, but they account for 33% of road fatalities. It is difficult to get positive spin out of that, no matter how much of a youth worker you think you are.

RED’s “research” amounts to a questionnaire put to 500 young drivers – quite possibly ones taught by RED instructors. The outcome is that a third (and that’s ONLY a third) think they have fewer bad habits than their parents and drive more in accordance with the Highway Code.

RED is clearly aided and abetted in mangling any statistics that might be involved by Kent Online, who have turned it into the banner headline: Young drivers `more careful than parents’.

To start with, that’s not what the “research” found. Having fewer bad habits and knowing more about the Highway Code does not make you a “more careful” driver. You get that label by having fewer accidents – and the fact I quoted above about road fatalities is far more significant in that respect.

And one-third of respondents answering one way is NOT a majority. It means that two-thirds – a sizable majority – DON’T think they are safer than their parents or know more about the Highway Code! This is obviously the correct interpretation of the “research”, and not the one RED or Kent Online is waffling about.

Ian McIntosh, CEO of RED Driving School said: “We thought it was important to ask young drivers, both learners and newly qualified, about their thoughts on how well they drive.”

Why? The only thing you’re going to show is how wrong they are. And you succeeded. He continues:

“It’s good to see that young drivers are confident in their driving ability and believe that, because they’re going through or have recently been through the driving tuition and test procedure, they’re better placed to drive safely and competently.”

He is on a different planet here. Confidence is what gets them into near-death situations in the first place. It is lack of experience that is the problem – yet he is obviously at pains to suggest they’ve had good tuition. Tuition is not the issue. But I like this part:

“We know that, overall, young drivers have a higher tendency to drive less safely…”

Well, that’s not what you or Kent Online has just tried to report, is it? You’ve just clouded the issue, which will make any changes to the law or testing system even more difficult to progress.

Teenage Yob Crashes Into House

Yet another case of a 17-year old who thinks he knows more than the rest of the human race – but who in actual fact was found to be sadly deficient in every possible area.

The teenage twat cannot be named for legal reasons. He was driving without a licence and without insurance. He failed to stop at the scene of an accident. It happened in Bucknall, Staffordshire.

The report says that he drove the car at high-speed, stalling about six times, drove on the wrong side of the road, and then crashed into a house (which was occupied).

He’s ben found guilty of dangerous driving – so the law seems to have worked. But the little prat has been granted unconditional bail until sentencing on 3 December. Oh, and he’s been banned from driving.

He should have been locked up to try to scare the crap out of him, because let’s face facts here: he isn’t going to get locked up on 3 December.

All the farting about trying to argue that driving instructors should be dealing with this sort of behaviour becomes laughable. This teenage moron probably isn’t taking lessons, and even if he was there is absolutely nothing an instructor can do to reverse such biological stupidity.

New Driver Restrictions – Update

The London Evening Standard has its own story on the proposed restrictions for new drivers.

Its says that three-quarters of the public think new drivers should face restrictions after passing their tests. Three quarters also agreed that there should be restrictions on carrying passengers.

Over half believe that there should be a minimum 12-month learning period before they can take their driving test., and similar numbers support a late-night curfew and think the driving test itself should change.

Nearly half of all 17-year old males have accidents within their first six months of driving.

Meanwhile, the bleeding hearts out there continue to oppose the suggestions as being unenforceable, and as being detrimental to the lifestyles of the little darlings whose lifestyles are such that they want to go out and kill themselves in their cars.

This ITV link gives some useful information linking to a variety of sources.

Are Learners Taking Their Tests Too Early?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radical Changes To Driving Test Demanded

This hot story from the news feeds says that insurers are tomorrow going to demand radical changes to the driving test as accident statistics reveal the risks posed by rural roads.

Insurers are demanding:

  • six month ban on carrying passengers after test
  • 11pm to 4am curfew
  • retest after 2-year probationary period

Insurers are meeting ministers this week to discuss road safety. As the report states, any reduction in accidents will bring down insurance premiums.

The report also states that the public supports change, with 76% agreeing some driver restrictions are needed. Obviously, that 76% doesn’t consist of any ADIs if what you read on the forums is anything to go by. The typical ADI is programmed to follow the “if-I-didn’t-think-of-it-then-it’s-a-crap-idea model.

Proposals for change already face an uphill struggle with people like this on the case. This woman’s “expertise” appears to derive from the fact that she was disabled in a car accident nine years ago (and that she’s a paralympian). Somehow, this gives her the insight necessary to claim that imposing restrictions on young drivers will prevent them getting the experience they need to become better drivers. She admits in this interview with Channel 4 that she was a “stereotypical” new driver, driving home from a party with a car full of friends.

She misses the point completely, having fired her gun in the exact opposite direction to the target! Like her, they are having accidents. But do they all need to keep having crashes and maiming themselves in order to “gain experience”?

And the AA also stoked the flames of opposition by claiming restrictions would be “impractical” and hard to police. They reckon more extensive driver training is the answer. Quite how they imagine “more extensive training” is to be policed is open to guesses.

I’m not singling out the AA here, but what we have is group after group after group trying to stake its claim on the road safety map with totally opposing views to each other. Actually cutting accident statistics comes in way behind just talking about it.

Young people have most accidents on rural roads at night, on bends, with a car full of passengers, with no other car involved. This is a simple fact. They are not taught to drive recklessly by their instructors, but they do drive recklessly through their own choices.

“More extensive training” will not change that! Not one iota.

Absolutely nothing so far has managed to control the way young drivers drive. All the namby-pamby stuff about coaching them in their lifestyle choices is like trying to knock down a wall with a feather. It hasn’t happened. It isn’t going to happen.

The time has come to just put a complete manual stop to the main causes of accidents – bravado, inexperience, and distraction (i.e. attitude). By all The largest road in Mallaig, Scotlandmeans try and deal with those issues separately, but you simply can’t let the carnage continue while every New Age initiative in the meantime fails miserably to change those attitudes.

However, the AA does have a valid point – a separate, and well-concealed point – when you consider this report in The Scotsman. It’s part of the same clutch of ABI (Association of British Insurers) press releases ahead of their week in the spotlight. The Scottish story explains that most accidents occur in the rural north east of the country. It tries to explain this away as being due to affluent drivers in fast cars and the rural location per se. What it doesn’t touch upon is the limited amount of driving learners in such areas are going to be asked to do prior to and during their tests.

I’ve reported before that test centres in these extreme rural locations have some of the highest driving test pass rates in the UK. They also have some of the fewest roads to drive on (the picture above shows the largest road in Mallaig, whose test centre has the highest pass rate in the UK). Laughably, instructors in these areas have suggested that it’s because they’re better trainers than those in dense urban areas with much lower pass rates (and high numbers of immigrants and cash-strapped people desperate to pass without paying for lessons). I wonder how they explain the high accident rates?

Everything in the Scottish story points to inexperience again. If you learn to drive and pass your test in an area with perhaps 10km of available road then you’re getting even less experience than those in more expansive areas – and we already know that they are often still inexperienced when it comes to driving on their own (because of perhaps only being taught test routes).

To be fair to Mallaig, it isn’t mentioned in the latest stats for accidents, but it is tucked away in a sparsely populated region. The data in the Scottish report relate to higher population density locations within these rural locations.

The problems all come down to inexperience and immature attitude. Forcing new drivers to take it easy for 6 months, then get re-tested after two years (that’s not going to happen in a million years), would be a great way of giving them vital experience. Increasing the minimum driving age would also help (especially for young males, who are frequently mentally aged 13-15 when their real age is 17. Stuff their “liberties”. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Parents Teaching Driving Skills To Kids

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Driver Restrictions – The Voice Of Youth

As you can imagine, the proposals being considered restricting the carrying of passengers by new drivers has got a few feathers ruffled. Here’s a sample from a forum frequented by the very people the restriction is aimed at.

They better not consider such a stupid proposal………..what if I need to take a passenger who isn’t family, plus who is considered family as mine is extensive or how would they even check

Well, there goes my car sharing plan for uni… it’s a ridiculous idea and unless they have everyone’s family trees or something then I’ll just gain a few extra cousins every time I need to go somewhere

Absolutely retarded. How are they even going to enforce this? Stop every driver who looks under 25 and who is carrying a ‘person that doesn’t seem like their family member’?

What an incredibly stupid idea. Some drivers (of any age) will drive badly whether they have passengers or not… Some may even drive better with passengers. What’s to stop young drivers meeting up in separate cars?

To me, it just seems like another excuse for insurers to not pay out.

My thoughts exactly.. if young drivers were THAT bad then surely it’d be better to just increase the driving age?

I’ve noticed that every time one of these stupid laws is thought up, it’s always the idea of the insurers. They only want these laws so that they have more reasons to not pay out.

You see what I mean about modern youth being so readily prepared to break the Law by lying if it suits them?

It is not an excuse for insurers not to pay out – if you’re insured and driving legally, they will pay. Premiums for young drivers are currently so bloody high because insurers are paying out too much and too often – and ever more frequently paying out to the next of kin while the insured driver (and his or her passengers) lies in a morgue somewhere.

If such a ban were imposed, and you flaunted it – that is, broke the Law – then they wouldn’t pay, and it would serve you right. But a significant number of people would abide by the new law, so there would be a benefit that isn’t there at the moment, and that would lead to lower premiums in the longer term.

None of these people ever stops to consider that young drivers often do have the wrong attitude, and this does lead to accidents, many of which are fatal, which does push premiums up. None of them can accept that the most common accidents involve young males, with passengers, at night, on quiet roads, where distraction and arrogance combined with inexperience are the causal factors. None of them can accept this, in spite of the facts.

And finally, the restriction would only be in place for a period of time during which experience would be gained. Unfortunately, whereas inexperience can be fixed in time, arrogance cannot.

If the Law were changed, it would almost certainly not apply to anyone who passed their test even as recently as today! The only people who should be concerned are those who pass once the Law has changed – and there’s no guarantee it will. It’s all just talk at the moment.

Scottish Council Cracks Down On Lunatic Parents On School Runs

I’ve written before about how badly parents drive around schools when they’re taking their own brats to and from them. Indeed, this chicane system in Nottingham is close to Hollygirt School, and in the mornings and afternoons parents park on both sides, on the yellow lines, on or off the pavements, and even on the chicane area itself if there’s nowhere else to stop. And since the chicane is on a bend, and has “give priority to oncoming traffic” signs at both ends, this makes driving through there extremely difficult and dangerous. And when they want to pull away they just do it.

Well, a Scottish Council is poised to show what must be the most humongous amount of common-sense ever by considering imposing complete bans on driving on certain roads (except for residents) during school run times.

School run maniacs in East Lothian would be forced to park 300m away from the gates.

The proposal has been blamed by the local council on parents desperate to park within feet of the school gates.

This is a story repeated outside thousands off schools across the entire UK every day of the week during term times. A spokesman for the council said:

The behaviours of these drivers, who make dangerous turning and reversing manoeuvres and contribute to congestion, cause difficulties for the majority of pupils and parents who walk or cycle to and from school.

It is totally inappropriate to try and carry out these sort of manoeuvres close to schools where there is a great number of schoolchildren present.

Following representations from the parent councils of the three schools, it was agreed to introduce the experimental traffic regulation order.

The AA warned it would just move the problem elsewhere – totally failing to appreciate that it would move the problem away from the school gates, which is why it is already such a big a deal in the first place.

New Driver Restrictions – Another Take

Another feed on that previous story about the possibility of new drivers facing bans on carrying passengers comes from Sky News.

I wanted to mention it because it refers to Drive IQ. I’ve written about this group before. To be honest, I can’t figure out how they fit in with the BTEC anymore, because they describe themselves as “100% not-for-profit”, and yet from what I remember they used to charge a pretty hefty sum for access to the full range of learning materials and were forever looking at ways of modifying the pricing structure to increase the dire take-up rate. The last thing I saw from them suggested that you could sign up for the course at a reduced price, but had to pay extra if you wanted a certificate at the end of it! Their website still refers to “Drive IQ Pro” (delivered by an ADI), and that definitely used to involve money changing hands and I can’t see how that has changed. However, Drive IQ is being pushed in schools so perhaps that facet of it really is not-for-profit, even though funding has to come from somewhere. It’s all very confusing – and road safety shouldn’t be.

The mother of a girl killed in a road accident (young, unlicensed male driver) is backing the Drive IQ programme. She says:

When it comes to young people being safer in cars, lack of knowledge can kill. I know that only too well.

Although I feel for her, she is sadly misguided in this analysis, particularly when you consider that the driver of the car her daughter was a passenger in hit a tree at 80mph!

Lack of knowledge isn’t the problem – every driver since the dawn of time (and I’m thinking as far back as carts drawn by animals here) has had to deal with lack of knowledge, gradually building up both that and their experience until they become competent drivers.

The problem is that whereas once upon a time most teenagers wouldn’t have dreamed of stealing a car and driving illegally for fear of getting a clip round the ear, today’s crop contains far too many who wouldn’t think twice about doing it regularly. Teenagers in the past knew it was wrong, and avoided doing things that were wrong. The dividing line between right and wrong back then was clearly defined by appropriate punishments.

These days they grow up without any such divisions being built into them. That’s what the problem is. Not a lack of knowledge, but a complete inability to deal with that lack. The driver of that car the girl was killed in almost certainly wasn’t doing 80mph because he was inexperienced or “didn’t know” – he was doing it because he was a juvenile prat.

As I mentioned in a recent post on Client-centred Learning, the DSA has now introduced its own syllabus for dealing with issues relating to the higher levels of the GDE Matrix. This is much more closely aligned with the driving test, simply by virtue of being under the DSA umbrella.

The biggest problem is that no course can force any ADI to cover anything other than the absolute bare minimum required to pass the driving test. Similarly, unless the Law changes, nothing can stop an increasing number of learners wanting to pass in the shortest possible time by spending the least possible amount of money. Ironically, those most likely to want to spend the least amount of money to pass their tests are inexorably drawn towards those ADIs most likely to only cover the barest minimum of the syllabus (i.e. the ones who charge stupid low prices, and so who cannot afford to teach the full syllabus). And so the downward spiral continues.

The only flaw with the DSA syllabus – and the same flaw exists to even greater degrees with other initiatives – is that ADIs will not be forced to implement it.

And the “government” shows further naïveté when  Louise Ellman, chair of the Commons Transport Select Committee, says:

There should be support for voluntary activities, perhaps in schools, perhaps in driving clubs to develop positive attitudes towards driving before people actually take their tests.

It goes far, far deeper than that.

New Drivers Could Be Banned From Carrying Passengers

A story on the newsfeeds, and covered in various places, says that the government is considering banning new drivers from carrying any passengers unless they are family members.

A ban on carrying any passengers is also a possibility.

The proposals are in reply to the Association of British Insurers (ABI), who have previously Police Accident Signreported on high premiums due to a disproportionate number of accidents involving young drivers. I reported on this back in October this year – at the time, the media had latched on to the minimum of one year to learn aspect.

As I also mentioned in a very recent post (posted, ironically, in response to do-gooder ADIs trying to claim that today’s youth are above reproach), 12.5% (1 in 8) of drivers are young and newly qualified, but they account for 33% of road deaths. Fortunately, someone out there is at least trying to act on the facts and not the baloney.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been on a lesson with a pupil, and we’ve been cut up by a Corsa with 5 males in it, all staring back and grinning like half-witted gargoyles at how clever they’ve all just been.

The report also refers back to the ABI suggestion about a curfew. As I recently noted, young male drivers are already seven times more at risk than all males put together – but this rockets to seventeen times more at risk at night.

The Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) continues to keep completely out of touch with reality by arguing against these suggestions, and yet again blaming it on the training young people receive. IAM seems incapable of understanding that lack of experience can never be bought by the lorry-load and applied overnight – it takes time for normal driving skills to consolidate when a new driver starts driving on their own.

The only way of stopping young, new drivers from killing themselves on rural bends while out with a car full of mates in the dark at midnight is to stop them from being able to have a car full of mates in the dark after midnight in the first place! Any fool ought to be able to see this.

The average 17-year old male these days has a mental age of at least 5 years younger (and often more) – I see this time and again when I drop them off after lessons near to shops or other places where their mates are all waiting with their BMX bikes, shouting and arseing around. Adults don’t generally behave like that – children generally do.

It seems that far too many people – ADIs included – cannot understand that the average 17-year old who kills himself and one or more of his passengers while showing off in the dark (or due to thinking he was a better driver than he was) does not actually sit there and say “today, I am going to behave like a total wanker in my Corsa and kill all my mates”. He does it because he’s an inexperienced 17-year old male with a serious attitude problem.

Inexperience and a bad attitude are the worst combination imaginable. Inexperience becomes experience with time – but the bad attitude is another matter entirely.

Banning them from dangerous situations while their skills and brains mature a little with their new licence makes far more sense than the pointless aim of trying to teach experience in the blink of an eye, which is what IAM keeps prattling on about.

New drivers should not be taught advanced driving techniques by default – and certainly not openly. Christ, they can’t even do the nursery school stuff confidently in many cases (which is why they have the bloody accidents), so teaching them how to do high-speed police chase driving is just asking for trouble when it is going to be their attitude that is the main problem in the first place.

Of course, the chances of anything changing are extremely remote. It’s just more talk.