Bad Drivers - Diary Of An ADI

Young Driver Accident Statistics

14/11/2012

I was surprised to see on a forum that the fact that young people have more accidents was being disputed. Insurance companies don’t charge young people more just for fun – it’s based on factual data.

Some of the comments were opinion-based, and made no attempt to link to actual statistics. But the statistics are there for anyone who cares to look (unfortunately, too many people favour the “lies, damned lies, and statistics” mantra over facts, and appear to see no wrong in today’s young people).

This report from 2010, based on investigations by Admiral, reveals that 17 and 18 year olds are:

twice as likely to have an accident as someone in their 30s
three times as likely than someone in their 40s
six times as likely as someone over 50

The data cover 2 million motorists, so they’re hardly non-representative. Admiral also found that:

13% of 17 and 18-year olds have had crashes
6.5% of motorists overall have had crashes
4.5% of those in their 40s have had crashes
2% of over 50s have had crashes

The cost of the claim was also revealing. The average claim value was:

£3,500 for 17 and 18-year olds
£1,741 for drivers overall
Accident claims by 17 and 18-year olds are five times more likely to include an injury to someone

A spokeswoman for Admiral said that the young driver statistics only seem to improve when they reach 25. The report also notes that those in the 17-21 age group are four times more likely than the average driver to be involved in a careless driving rap.

This report by Roadsafe (2009) also makes interesting reading. In particular the table on page 5, which compares factors involved in KSIs against age. It shows that 17-24 year olds are, when compared to over 25s:

more than twice as likely to lose control
twice as likely to be careless, reckless, or in a hurry
twice as likely to be caught out by road conditions
ten times as likely to be inexperienced, resulting in an accident
over twice as likely to be travelling too fast for the conditions
three times as likely to be exceeding the speed limit

This was comparing nearly 40,000 young driver KSIs with 150,000 older driver KSIs.

Brake, the road safety charity, reports that:

There is a wealth of research and casualty data showing that young drivers – particularly young male drivers – are at a much higher risk of crashing than older drivers. They are therefore more at risk of losing their lives or being seriously injured on the road, often killing or injuring their young passengers or other road users too. For example, in the UK only one in eight driver licence holders is aged 25 or under, yet one in three drivers who die is under 25.

That is quite a sobering thought. That only 12.5% of the driving population accounts for 33% of all road deaths. The report also notes:

17-20 year old males are seven times more at risk than all male drivers
between 2am and 5am they are seventeen times more at risk

Those wishy-washy liberals who can find no wrong in today’s youth need a good slap to wake them up. There is clearly a problem.

The Safe Roads Partnership says much the same thing, and also includes numerous report references for those ready to dispute the facts. Interestingly, they also point to Pass Plus as being a way of improving matters – which flies in the face of recent comments by ADIs that Pass Plus is a waste of time (it’s only a waste of time if the person delivering it is a crap instructor).

From my own perspective, I teach people to drive. How they choose to behave when they leave me is unfortunately out of my control, and no one is ever going to convince me otherwise. Part of the reason many of them DO behave so differently on their own is that they’ve been brought up badly by people who simply can’t see that there are problems, and so who don’t do anything about it. I mean parents and school teachers.

I say again: I teach them how to drive. I give them all the necessary skills to do what I did when I learnt to drive – and that is to take care and carry on learning. That’s what the driving test does. It allows people who have reached the first point on a lifelong learning curve to go out and move to the next level.

Unfortunately, modern youngsters have been brought up to believe differently. And that’s why we have such shocking statistics.

One more thing. It doesn’t matter if the number of deaths involving 17-24 year olds has fallen over the last 10 years. What matters is the proportion of deaths compared to other age groups – because that highlights the problem instead of trying to sweep it under the carpet.

Ban Elderly From Cemeteries?

14/11/2012

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, News

At the end of August I reported on a non-incident where a learner driver had accidentally damaged a headstone while driving through a cemetery. The local hyenas immediately called for learners to be banned from all cemeteries.

I note from the newsfeeds this latest example of headstone vandalism, where an elderly driver in his mid-70s attempted to manoeuvre his vehicle and ended up flattening someone’s monument. This one happened in Lancashire.

The local hyenas have not yet clamoured for the elderly – who are a far greater risk than learners in these locations – to be banned from cemeteries. I won’t hold my breath.

(Note the tragedy surrounding Cassie McCord, also discussed previously.)

Cassie’s Law – ePetition

04/11/2012

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, News

The petition is now closed. It made 20,002 signatures in the end – an obvious sign that there is something that needs to be done about dangerous elderly drivers.

Unfortunately, it fell short of the 100,000 needed to get it debated in parliament, although by exceeding 10,000 it should get a comment. Ironically, a petition about the West Coast Franchise debacle has nearly 200,000! One about beer duty has over 100,000! Others of ridiculously low significance also have a disproportionate number.

As I’ve said before – and in the words of Kent Brockman – democracy simply doesn’t work.

Fortunately, as this story reveals, Cassie’s Law WILL be passed (sort of).

I saw this story in the newsfeeds. The original story from last year is here.

Cassie McCord was 16, and a student in Colchester. In February last year, she was hit – as she walked on the pavement – by an 87-year old driver. She died from her injuries later.

The driver, Colin Horsfall, had already been warned by police to stop driving after he went into the EXIT of a garage and ran into trees.

He failed an on-the-spot eye check during this particular incident, but refused to surrender his licence. Police have no powers to ban people immediately. Unbelievably, this happened just three days before he killed Cassie, so she’d obviously still have been alive today if Horsfall had been forcibly removed from the roads.

A verdict of unlawful killing was returned. Horsfall was injured in the incident and died – apparently from his injuries – several months later. This was recorded as accidental death. So, as well as deliberately continuing to drive when he was clearly completely incapable of doing so safely, he was also never brought to task over Cassie’s death.

Cassie’s mother, Jackie, has set up an e-petition asking that police be given the power to temporarily suspend drivers in such circumstances. It has the backing of the police, who also suggest that they should be allowed to confiscate vehicles as well. I fully agree. People like Colin Horsfall are absolute menaces. Horsfall was by no means unique.

You can ~~view the petition and sign it here~~ (or click the image). I urge everyone to do so – getting these types of dangerous drivers off the roads permanently is one of the best things the government could do.

EDIT: Note this story, too. An elderly driver killed an innocent motorist as a result of being unfit to drive through age .

And note this story where another elderly driver also got on the wrong side of the road and collided with two other cars.

And this one, where an elderly driver with defective eyesight injured a cyclist.

Elderly Boy Racers

14/10/2012

DOAADI

Bad Drivers

I was on a lesson with a pupil this afternoon and we were driving along the Colwick Loop Road near Netherfield. I was teaching my pupil how to anticipate traffic lights changing by looking well ahead, easing off the gas, and avoiding stopping if necessary.

As we passed through the lights at Road No. 1 I noticed a car in my rearview mirror (a metallic powder-blue Vauxhall Astra, reg. no. FN09 HFD) approaching at speed. It didn’t actually slow down, even though the two lanes were merging into one, so I put my fingers on the steering wheel to make sure my learner didn’t panic and steer into the kerb or brake hard (as learners often do when they see someone cutting them up).

The car behind was clearly driving well in excess of the speed limit, and the only thing that stopped him going past us, even after the merge, was the fact that he’d have run head-on into oncoming traffic (or hit a central bollard). He’d misjudged everything by just about as much as it was possible to, and nearly killed himself in the process. I pointed to my head – I couldn’t believe that he’d been stupid enough to even contemplate what he’d attempted (fortunately, my pupil hadn’t seen him – even though she should have). I noticed that the driver was elderly, with an elderly female passenger.

Anyway, as we continued I’d instructed my pupil to follow the signs towards Southwell, which meant staying in lane at the Victoria Park junction. The car I mentioned previously was behind us at those lights. As they changed we moved off normally.

As we moved off I noticed him swing out to our left – into the lanes for Arnold and Gedling. I half expected him to go flying past us on the left, but he didn’t. As we approached the cut off point at the next lights we could hear a long horn sound. It turned out that this senile idiot had tried to undercut us at a speed equal to or less than what we were doing, and didn’t like the fact that he’d been unable to. God knows what was going through his dementia-riddled brain to try this stupid manoeuvre.

As we stopped at the lights, the moron – both were obviously OAPs – flew out across the back of us and into the right hand lane.

I gave him a right mouthful at this stage. My pupil was driving absolutely safely and normally, and nothing she was doing was in any way wrong. Except to this dementia-case of a driver.

On the other hand, absolutely everything he was doing for the 60 seconds I was aware of him was dangerous, illegal, and plain wrong. He was speeding (before, and after as he shot off), he tried to dangerously overtake, and he tried to dangerously undertake (the failure of which made him dangerously overtake again). He saw a learner in front and decided to get past at all costs. He exhibited road rage when he failed (twice). His aged brain couldn’t judge it right in the first place, and was even less capable of dealing with it when it started to go wrong.

I could see the two of them mouthing off to each other as they sped off – I hate those Darby & Joan car double-acts where the weak-minded old man is told what to do by the harridan he’s married to at the best of times. No doubt she was equally incorrect about who was behaving like a senile imbecile, and who was driving sensibly and correctly. I bet they’re still yapping about it now.

Regular readers will know I’ve been supporting Cassie’s Law for the last 12 months. Cassie McCord was killed by an elderly driver who should have already been taken off the roads by force due to his appalling eyesight and other age-related issues (i.e. that he’d had an accident only days before the one involving Cassie).

The driver I encountered today falls into the exact same bracket. Driving the way he was, all it would have needed was someone like Cassie being in the wrong place at the wrong time and they’d be history. It is unbelievable that scum like this are allowed to remain on the roads. This fossil was totally and completely wrong, and at his age totally incapable of getting away with it or even of judging it properly. Fortunately this time he just made himself look like a prat.

ANYONE Can Learn To Drive… But SHOULD They?

04/10/2012

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, Driving Tests, Training

I was reading something recently and was struck by the shallowness in the way some people think. It’s a simple fact that just about anyone can learn to drive – the real question that no one seems to consider is should they?

Thinking of my own previous pupils for a minute, my quickest went from absolute zero (never driven before) to test pass in just 17½ hours – passing her test first time. My slowest one to date took around 160 hours and passed on his third attempt (which wasn’t bad, considering). Both were in the 17-24 age group, but I privately despaired at ever being able to get that second one up to test standard – and even then I worried about how he’d drive once he’d passed.

He was an unbelievably slow learner, even though he was holding down a good job in IT. There was absolutely nothing wrong with him except when he was behind the wheel of a car, and he was a really nice young chap. Every single aspect of learning to drive – how to use the clutch, how to brake, how to steer, etc. – had to be dealt with laboriously over months of lessons. And even when he could do them, he simply couldn’t apply them in real situations, and this took even more time to develop.

He wasn’t what you’d call wealthy, but he had no problem paying for lessons. I still felt terrible about the fact that he was paying me thousands of pounds (over £3,700 in the end) to teach him. I’d suggested a couple of times that he might want to consider learning in an automatic, but he was absolutely adamant that he wanted to pass in a manual car. In the end, I think the important thing was that we both knew that he had a problem, and that it wasn’t the tuition that was to blame.

That’s why those who try to suggest that the instructor is specifically the problem, offering epithets like “don’t be ashamed if you can’t do it – pass them over to someone who can”, are talking out of their backsides. I covered everything with this guy, in every way imaginable, in order to teach him how to drive. In the end we both succeeded and I doubt that anyone else could have done it any more quickly than I did.

However, one question I cannot answer is should he be driving?

When you travel the roads every day, you see dozens of people out there who – one way or another – are not good drivers. You get boy racers who think they’re good, but aren’t. You have older drivers whose faculties are declining. You get the white-knuckle matrons who are terrified of being on the roads at all, but go on them anyway. You get the diminutive 4×4 drivers who couldn’t handle a Tonka truck, let alone a 2½ tonne tank (especially near schools and in supermarket car parks). You get people who simply can’t do roundabouts, and who negotiate the same ones every day and do them wrong every time. The list goes on and on.

Should any of those be driving?

Far too many ADIs these days – and it is a fairly recent malady – seem to forget that teaching people how to drive is just a job, and the purpose of that job is to earn money by doing it well. In other words, as with most jobs, there is a balance to be found between purely financial concerns on the one hand, and professional and moral responsibilities on the other. You cannot take things to extremes.

Unfortunately, the exceptional ability of many ADIs to use “doublethink” clouds this distinction quite significantly. For example, specialising in teaching people who have health or age issues, but overlooking the obvious safety implications of letting them loose on the roads – where the moral implications are not even considered – might come across as very philanthropic. But it is a definite selling point which allows a premium price to be charged for the service, so the financial arguments are obviously highly significant.

Is it a sin to advise someone to learn in an automatic car when they have obvious issues controlling clutch and gears? Well, some might argue that the “inferior” ADI who can’t handle such difficult learners would do well to pass them over to someone who can. As I said above, this is utter crap – it is merely a covert marketing ploy by the “specialists”.

Sure, there are some ADIs who can’t even handle normal learners very well, let alone the tricky ones, but that isn’t the issue. What these experts always ignore is the fact that most pupils want to learn quickly and often cannot afford 150 hours or more of lessons. If I get someone who is open about having a budget that they cannot exceed, then I’m open with them about whether I think they can do it or not – and especially if I discover that their left and right feet can’t work the pedals, and still refuse to do so even after hours of trying. Indeed, it’s got to the stage where I make a point of mentioning the automatic option to some new budget-focused pupils once I’ve seen how they are likely to develop.

I’ve got one at the moment. Really nice lady who – on her first lesson – showed a lot of promise. She’d mentioned how she had a budget and had already considered learning in an automatic, but would prefer a manual licence if possible. However, about 7 hours in and it has become clear that her left foot has a mind of its own which isn’t likely to change overnight. I’ve explained clearly that I am absolutely certain she could learn in a manual car, but probably not as quickly as she’d like and she might want to reconsider the automatic option in light of that. The coordination problems that she experiences with the clutch and gears simply wouldn’t exist in an automatic. She is grateful that I have told her this, and although I will lose a pupil she’ll leave happy.

One I’ve mentioned before finally passed her test in an automatic on her 7th (I think) attempt. It took her two years of automatic lessons – and that’s on top of the two she spent with me, determined to succeed in a manual transmission car. Even after 100 hours it was a 50:50 bet on whether she’d put the clutch down before stopping. After her first automatic lesson she phoned me and beamed “it’s great! When I stop at traffic lights all I have to do is brake, and then let go when I want to move again.” That was exactly what she kept doing in the manual car, of course, which resulted in frequent stalls.

There is absolutely no way any “expert” could have made any difference. She simply had a problem with driving, and the fact that it took seven test attempts even with an auto instructor bears testimony to this. If she’d have stayed with me she could still easily have not been test ready even now. I estimate that she has spent in excess of £7,000 to get her licence. And yes, I worry about how she’ll cope when she gets her own car. An instructor’s moral concerns don’t just end with the public.

Anyone who is struggling to learn to drive in a manual car, and who has limited funds on which to draw, should seriously consider learning in an automatic. It’s no sign of weakness to advise them on that – in fact, it is potentially irresponsible and unprofessional not to advise them of that option.

Learning To Drive To Take One Year?

04/10/2012

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, Driving Tests, News, Training

This news story on the BBC reports that insurers are calling for an overhaul of the learner system. The changes they suggest include:

learning to drive to take at least 1 year
provisional licence available from 16½ years old
no intensive courses allowed
introduction of graduated licence
restrictions on carrying passengers
restrictions on driving after 11pm and before 4am
No blood alcohol allowed at all

I agree with all of these except the one about reducing the age limit. Drivers are already often too immature to handle a car properly and allowing them to get in one 6 months earlier is just stupid. It would put us on a par with certain American states, where you can drive from the moment you’re born, and where you’re also usually allowed to marry farm animals. All you have to do is trawl through the news stories from those backwoods places to see what the effect of allowing children to drive is on accident figures.

The insurers only want a lower age because it would make them more money. There’s no sense in the idea in terms of statistics, yet it would unquestionably increase the number of people requiring insurance.

If anything, the minimum driving age should be increased – certainly for males.

There’s no escaping the actual statistics, though. Young drivers DO have a disproportionately large number of fatal accidents, and a large number of those fall into the “more-than-one-occupant-late-night-rural-road-on-a-bend-no-other-car-involved” category. It’s fairly obvious that immaturity and attitude have to play a significant part in this – I wish someone would produce the statistics that compare young/new with older/new drivers (not all learners are still in nappies).

Note: Even if this were approved today, it wouldn’t become law for several years – and it would probably be defeated before it became law because British politicians after votes are lower down the evolutionary ladder than those animals you’re allowed to marry in some American states I mentioned above!

Splashing People

25/09/2012

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, Training

With the heavy rain we had yesterday, it’s important to explain to pupils about how to handle standing water on the road. Every year the issue of “splashing pedestrians” crops up, and it is usually followed by a hundred different interpretations of whether it is illegal or not.

Let’s try and put it to bed once and for all by ~~quoting an actual solicitor~~ (link removed as it contains suspected malware) – that’s someone who deals with the law for a living – and not a driving instructor or piston head who thinks he is Superman.

More about driving without due care and attention/ careless driving

A person is considered to have been driving carelessly or without due care and attention if their driving falls below what would be expected of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver or driving without reasonable consideration for other road users.

The “Driving Offences Charging Standard” produced by the Crown Prosecution Service provides examples of the types of driving that may be considered to be careless. These include:

driving through a red light,

pulling out of a side road into the path of another vehicle,

driving too close to the rear of another vehicle, or

overtaking on the inside.

Examples of driving without reasonable consideration for other road users include:

flashing headlamps to force other drivers to move over,

remaining in the overtaking lane when it is unnecessary,

failing to dip headlights so other drivers are dazzled, or

splashing pedestrians by driving through a puddle of water.

The maximum penalty for careless driving is a fine of £2,500 and between 3 & 9 penalty points.

So, splashing pedestrians CAN be treated as driving without due care and attention, and it CAN lead to prosecution.

Now, obviously any such instance would have to be proven, but any normal person would simply conclude that they shouldn’t do it, and should avoid doing it even by sheer accident (after all, if you run someone over, saying it was an accident and that you’re sorry doesn’t alter the fact you did it and you’re going to be in trouble because of it). Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who are prepared to try and fight it in court (at least, in their vivid imaginations) in such a way that they seem to believe they ought to be allowed to do it!

On a more realistic note, however, splashing pedestrians is just wrong (yes, it has a slapstick humour aspect, but then so does drug abuse and murder if you look at a lot of Hollywood movies over the years – but those are still crimes) So don’t do it, and take care when driving through water where you might splash someone.

How To Bay Park (Update)

07/09/2012

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, Driving Tests, DSA, Training

Note that this is an old article from 2012! I say that, because it’s been getting hits in mid-2019. All references to DSA are, of course, referring to DVSA in 2019. Also, in 2019 you might be asked to drive forwards into a bay, then reverse out again.

I wrote an article a while back explaining how to reverse park into a bay, which has been popular and which several people have told me they found useful. Empty parking bays

Obviously, not everyone in the world reads this blog, and they go on to various web forums to find the answers to problems they have with driving. Unfortunately, they get fed some utter crap as a result.

On one forum (frequented by student types) someone has asked how they would find their “bay parking reference point” in their own car. It’s a sensible enough question as long you accept that one way (there are others) of bay parking IS to use a reference point in the sense that they meant it.

Someone – who I believe is classed as an “advanced driver” – has responded:

DSA stupidly get you to approach away from the selected bay and then start the reverse from that position which is at 90% to the bay!!!!

This is complete bullshit – there is no “DSA way” – and this so-called “advanced driver” also refers to the “non-DSA way”. The DSA doesn’t care how you reverse into the bay as long as you’re in control and safe. Their DT1 document says:

AT THE START OF THE TEST

…They should be asked to drive out of the bay to the left or right (if both options are available in that car park) and stop with the wheels straight before reversing into any convenient bay and parking the car (examiners should not instruct candidates to park in the centre of the bay). The instruction is to prevent them reversing back, into the bay on the same lock.

Providing some attempt has been made to straighten the front wheels, examiners should not be concerned if the wheels are not completely straight. The candidate may elect to drive forward to adjust the angle at which they address the bay they intend to reverse into, or space permitting, they are allowed to drive forwards into one bay before reversing back in a straight line into the opposing bay.

AT THE END OF THE TEST

On the approach to the centre the candidate should be advised to turn into the car park and reverse into any convenient bay to park the car. The candidate can again make their own choice of bay and carry out the manoeuvre in the way that they choose, given the restrictions that may be imposed by the characteristics of the car park.

Nowhere does it say they have to be at 90 degrees to the bay they intend to reverse into. It’s the candidate’s choice how they do it – all they must do is drive out of the bay to the left or right (if they’re already in one) and straighten the wheels to prevent them cheating and just going back in along the path they took as they moved out. They can drive into bays on the opposite side if these are free, utilising whatever space is available – just as they would do in real life.

The total misinformation given by this guy will now be taken as gospel by those who have been unfortunate enough to read it. That’s how bad driving starts – with bad information. So it’s ironic that in this case it should come from a member of a group which has a far higher opinion of itself than the reality would indicate. It’s just a shame that the accuracy of its knowledge is severely corrupted by its feelings towards the DSA. There is NO “DSA way” to bay park.

It’s also worth noting that this same “advanced driver” – who is not an ADI – has been berated on several other forums for his often nonsensical advice.

The 90 degree method is often easier for people who find reversing difficult. And more importantly, since their they have just one chance to get it right on their driving test, it is often the most reproducible way. But it isn’t the only way, and candidates can choose whichever method suits them best.

To answer the original poster’s question…

How do I find the bay park reference point in my own car?

It’s quite easy. Find an empty or quiet car park and drive forwards into one of the middle bays (i.e. those not backed by kerbs or walls). Make sure you’re nicely centred.

Now, just do the manoeuvre in reverse. Drive forward very slowly until your shoulder is level with the end of the bay and stop. As you start moving again very slowly, get full lock on quickly and continue forward until you are at 90 degrees to the bays, straighten your wheels, then stop (or you could stop first, then straighten your wheels as you move again – it’s up to you). Finally, move forward about another 15cm/6 inches and stop.

You should now have a reference point with one of the adjacent lines that you can commit to memory.

You might need to tweak it a bit if your car control is initially a bit clumsy, but this is how to set the reference position if you use the 90 degree method. Then you need to practice the actual manoeuvre to get a consistent routine – it won’t work if you sometimes dry steer, sometimes lurch backward as you release the handbrake, sometimes roll forward or backward, and so on.

Reversing in from 90° confuses other drivers, doesn’t it?

No. In a busy car park, it is up to you to decide how to park. There will be occasions when you decide to drive straight into a bay head first – if someone is following close behind, for example. But don’t try and convince yourself that the 90° reverse method is any more inconvenient than the angled reverse. It isn’t.

If you see an empty bay and you intend to drive into it – forwards or backwards – signal your intention, and then position yourself accordingly.

The School Run… All 500 Metres Of It!

07/09/2012

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, News

This story in yesterday’s Mirror made me think various things.

At the moment, the newsfeeds are filled with stories about going back to school, being careful driving near schools, and so on. The one topic that isn’t addressed in any of the stories I’ve seen is how the idiots who actually do the school runs should drive.

As a whole, the people who drive school runs are literally the worst drivers on the planet. They stop wherever they want, and once they’ve picked up their own brats they don’t give a toss about anyone else’s. They park on corners, on yellow lines, on the yellow zig-zags – anywhere. And once they’ve loaded their brood they just drive off (or do a u-turn) without consideration for anyone else. They’re worse than taxis.

So, this woman the Mirror talks about (from Manchester) is especially entertaining when she says she drives her kids the half mile to school – but she isn’t a bad mother.

I’ve got news for you about that, dear…

The kid is not going to get any exercise if you drive her such ridiculously short distances. She’s not going to learn any sort of independence and will rely on you until she’s old enough to drive herself. She won’t mix with other kids with you mollycoddling her. You can gloss it up as much as you like, but you are being irresponsible.

Drink Driver Leaves Victim Brain Damaged

07/09/2012

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, News

This story tells how Paul Critchley, 29, drank four pints of beer and then drove at speeds of between 50 and 60mph in Northwich, before smashing into a pedestrian and leaving him brain-damaged for life.

Critchley had only been driving for a year after a previous conviction for dangerous driving.

Something occurred to me, though. You hear of people being arrested for driving more than quadruple the legal limit for alcohol. Yet Critchley was less than twice the limit. Looking at his photo he doesn’t look like someone who is a stranger to a few pints, or who would fall over if he sniffed a wine cork, so you can’t help wonder exactly what was going on in the peanut-sized ganglion that passes for a brain in his kind – particularly when you consider his previous form.

In a way, when people are prosecuted for drink-driving, there must be a masking effect which prevents some facts coming out.

For example, imagine that someone deliberately runs over a pedestrian – let’s say, someone they’ve had a spat with over something. If they are over the limit, might the zeal with which that is punished mask the true motive?

I’m not saying Critchley did what he did deliberately, but if he had previously been caught for driving dangerously – and given that being less than twice the legal limit doesn’t exactly send you into a coma – might there not be more to his actions than just being legally “drunk”? Could it be that he (and many others of similar kind) is psychologically unstable to begin with, and the alcohol simply enhances that?

Category - Bad Drivers