A story from Scotland culled from another pointless FOI request reveals the staggering figure of 46 accidents involving learners on test since 2008.
Simple arithmetic doesn’t seem to be the strongpoint of the author, who wants to make a big deal out of the fact, in spite of it only equating to 10 accidents a year. Considering that there are in the region of a quarter of a million tests or more conducted in Scotland annually, it means nothing.
The FOI data don’t identify WHO was to blame for the accidents, either.
Making matters worse is some jackass from one of the “associations” who reckons that a learner making a mistake isn’t ready for test. That’s bullshit! And so is this nonsense about the word “accident” – three little syllables convey all the necessary meaning in any normal conversation. It doesn’t need some pseudo-academic trying to enlighten us to imagined philosophical connotations of the word.
Without knowing the specific details of each accident – and even insurance companies and the police often never get to the bottom of that – you cannot automatically blame the learner for any they might be involved in. Accidents DO happen – and they happen to innocent parties.
At least someone at the DSA has got their finger on the pulse (instead of up their backsides):
…thankfully accidents on test are extremely rare.
Precisely.
Even big-nuts advanced drivers who are mouthpieces for some of the organisations were not perfect when they first passed their tests. They continued to learn once they got their passes. It’s always been like that… and it always will.
The DSA has come up trumps with this reminder to cyclists about how THEY should behave on the roads.
Rule 66
You should
keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
keep both feet on the pedals
never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
not ride close behind another vehicle
not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain
be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted
It’s almost laughable in some respects. You could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of cyclists who are even aware that there are rules they’re supposed to follow, let alone be prepared to abide by them.
The Spandex boys – the ones who think they’re athletes, but aren’t – are the worst offenders. This year already seems much worse than usual. The Olympics has got them all worked up, I guess.
Another one of the DSA’s timely reminders about parts of the Highway Code, this time concerning roundabouts.
Rule 186
Signals and position
When taking the first exit to the left, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise
signal left and approach in the left-hand lane
keep to the left on the roundabout and continue signalling left to leave
When taking an exit to the right or going full circle, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise
signal right and approach in the right-hand lane
keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to exit the roundabout
signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want
When taking any intermediate exit, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise
select the appropriate lane on approach to the roundabout
you should not normally need to signal on approach
stay in this lane until you need to alter course to exit the roundabout
signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want
When there are more than three lanes at the entrance to a roundabout, use the most appropriate lane on approach and through it.
Read all the rules about roundabouts (184-190)
As I’ve mentioned previously, it’s a great idea to circulate this kind of information. Whether it works or not is another matter entirely – the understanding of roundabouts among the general public (including many of those who think they’re “advanced” drivers and can therefore drive around them any way they feel like) is appalling.
Also, don’t forget my own articles on roundabouts here and here.
It’s not a new game, but it is getting more common these days.
“Beat the Learner” is where the driver of a car which has no right of way under any normal circumstances has such a tiny brain that they work on the principle that if the other car has L plates on it then they can just do whatever they feel like.
I had one tonight – it was a yucky grey SAAB (reg. no. X436 XAL). I approached traffic lights which had just changed to green, intending to turn left. This dickhead saw me coming, processed the information in his (or her) tiny mind at half speed, and when they arrived at the condition “it’s got L plates”, they decided that meant they could go – and turned right across my path.
It’s worth pointing out that once they turned they then proceeded to drive at well in excess of 30mph all the way through Ruddington, forcing their way past parked cars in the face of oncoming traffic. They turned towards Clifton and that was the last I saw of them.
It’s also worth pointing out that there was a child in the passenger seat – a young girl aged 10 at most. So as well as being a rubbish and dangerous driver, they are also extremely unfit parents. It’s always the ones who are most unfit for being parents who breed like flies, of course, but the girl in that passenger seat is to be pitied for the life she is destined for, by having such an appalling role model as a mother or father.
anywhere you would prevent access for Emergency Services
at or near a bus or tram stop or taxi rank
on the approach to a level crossing or tramway crossing
opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space
near the brow of a hill or hump bridge
opposite a traffic island or (if this would cause an obstruction) another parked vehicle
where you would force other traffic to enter a tram lane
where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users and powered mobility vehicles
in front of an entrance to a property
on a bend
where you would obstruct cyclists’ use of cycle facilities
except when forced to do so by stationary traffic.
Read all the rules about waiting and parking (238-252)
Again, it’s a good idea to circulate this information – far too many people (especially the mummies during school runs and 99.9% of taxi drivers) ignore the rules completely.
Two stories which complement each other beautifully in the news today.
Firstly, there is this one about a 74-year old woman who has passed her test after 58 years. To be fair, it seems that when she began learning back in 1954 she never actually took the test and only started learning again over the last year or so. She passed on her third attempt (which is not bad for a lot of people – whatever their age).
Then there is this story about a woman who was knocked down in a car park by an 87-year old man, who was subsequently found guilty of driving without due care and attention, given 6 points, and fined £550 with £700 costs. He was not banned or ordered to take a re-test. It seems that the old man accelerated into the woman he hit.
It seems that in court, the driver admitted he didn’t see the woman.
A spokeswoman for the Association of British Insurers (ABI) said insurance premiums start climbing once drivers reach 75 because of the increasing risk from deteriorating eyesight, using the car less and slower reactions.
Now, there is nothing to say the lady in the first story is a poor driver, but you have to wonder how long that can last for when you keep seeing stories like the second one – and ones like this one (Cassie’s Law still needs signatures, so make sure you sign it).
A very interesting article in The Times. It reports on a cab firm owner in London, John Griffin, who has really upset the greenies down his way.
Before I pass my own opinion, I think we can safely assume that the guy is being taken out of context as far as is humanly possible without actually accusing him of saying things he didn’t actually say.
You can read his original article in “add lib” (the magazine it’s from) here, but this is the exact text:
Green party candidates and others are up in arms about what they see as the murder of Cyclists on London Roads.
There has, as we all know, been a tremendous upsurge in cycling and cycling shops. This summer the roads will be thick with bicycles. These cyclists are throwing themselves onto some of the most congested spaces in the world. They leap onto a vehicle which offers them no protection except a padded plastic hat.
Should a motorist fail to observe a granny wobbling to avoid a pothole or a rain drain, then he is guilty of failing to anticipate that this was somebody on her maiden voyage into the abyss. The fact is he just didn’t see her and however cautious, caring or alert he is, the influx of beginner cyclists is going to lead to an overall increase in accidents involving cyclists.
The rest of us occupying this roadspace have had to undergo extensive training. We are sitting inside a protected space with impact bars and air bags and paying extortionate amounts of taxes on our vehicle purchase, parking, servicing, insurance and road tax.
It is time for us to say to cyclists, ‘You want to join our gang, get trained and pay up’.
It isn’t a very long article, really. So let’s look at what he says.
Yes, the Green Brigade HAS been up in arms. Yes, there HAS been a huge increase in cycling participation and yes, the roads ARE thick with them. Yes, London DOES have some of the busiest roads in the world and yes, people who buy bikes DO go straight out without a thought either for themselves or anyone else.
Yes, if a motorist is hit effectively hit by one of these idiots – and the idiot subsequently injured or killed – the motorist is almost certainly going to find himself with points or a ban. And that’s only if he’s lucky.
Yes, drivers DO have to undergo training and yes, we DO have to pay for that training, road and other taxes, insurance, parking, repairs, and so on.
And yes, a cyclist has to do none of these things. Yes, they ought to have to.
So Mr Griffin hasn’t really said anything that’s particularly controversial. It only becomes controversial when you convince yourself he’s somehow said it’s all right to “murder cyclists” when, in actual fact, it seems that it was the Green Party who brought up that pathetic phrase in the first place to try and force its own doctrine on the majority.
I would also add that cyclists can freely choose to ignore cycle lanes in favour of the busy road, and they usually do (it’s always either the fat, middle-aged ones who think they’re athletes, or the horrid, spindly Spandex Brigade who almost invariably have personality problems).
There is not one single word in John Griffin’s article which is incorrect. He is totally, utterly right in every way.
Cyclists – in general – are an absolute menace. Not because they’re cyclists, but because they haven’t got a clue about road safety as it relates to them. I’ve mentioned them several times in the last few years because it is always this time of year they come out en masse (they can’t be THAT serious if they wait until it’s sunny).
It is the en masse crowd who are often the main problem. There are too many of them, they always use the most dangerous roads, and they simply haven’t got a clue.
Yes, they have every right. But they also have every right to expect a higher risk of accident if they insist on riding two abreast on single track roads with zigzag bends, not giving way to anyone or anything (that seemed to disappear from their Highway Code donkey’s years ago), riding on to pedestrian crossings and the pavement to avoid traffic lights, ignoring traffic lights, not using purpose-built paths, and so on and on.
And if they’re going to use the roads, they should be taxed and insured like everyone else.
Obviously, my own experiences don’t relate specifically to London. But as we know, there are those for whom London is a magical place, full of pixies, gnomes, and other things that make them regard it as The Centre Of The Universe. In fact, London is a dangerous city full of ridiculously congested roads. And if it’s got a load of cyclists as well, then it’s a hundred times worse still!
If you want to see the view from a parallel universe (i.e. the one cyclists live in) take a look here.
You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right.
At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.
I think the DSA has started doing this as a way of trying to keep drivers’ knowledge up to date – which is a good thing, since most appear to have great difficulty doing it themselves, and have have had for many years (poor knowledge of the HC has always been a problem).
During rush hour, many people have difficulty in dealing with box junctions. Lorry drivers are one of the worst culprits. However, I honestly think most people simply don’t know they’re there – or only realise once they’re stopped in them (judging from the sheepish looks you get when they’re blocking you).
This story from Canada reports that from tomorrow (Sunday), drivers in Quebec under/including the age of 21 face an immediate 3-month ban if they drive with ANY alcohol in their bloodstream. The limit for older drivers remains unchanged (it’s the same limit as in the UK).
According to the article, it means young drivers have to spend five years being completely sober if they drive.
New drivers in Quebec are already forbidden from drinking at age 16 with a learner’s permit, and for two years once they get their provisional. This change means that is now extended up to the age of 22.
The new rule also allows police to stop young drivers to test them.
Apparently, Ontario, Manitoba, and New Brunswick in Canada already have the same rule, where it has apparently been effective.
Some countries’ leaders definitely have more balls than ours do.
I was listening to a discussion in the test centre waiting room last week about the merits – or otherwise – of the Driving Theory Test (introduced in the mid-90s) over the previous method of testing driving knowledge.
For anyone who doesn’t know, in the “olden days” when you took your driving test, the examiner would ask you a couple of questions at the end. I can remember one of mine being the blue “keep left” sign, and vaguely another sign, produced from a ring-bound set of laminated cards. There might have been a question about parking – but it was a long time ago.
If you believe some people, the previous method guaranteed 100% God-like knowledge of the Highway Code for the entire lifespan of every person who passed their driving test back then. The current method, on the other hand, is apparently responsible for every road accident, the global warming problem, and possibly several major natural disasters since its inception. The Hazard Perception Test (introduced in 2002) just added knobs on to this.
It’s worth setting the record straight on this subject.
One of the main reasons the previous method was replaced was that it most definitely did not ensure God-like knowledge. Nor did what little knowledge was gained stick for more than about 5 minutes after someone passed their test. Far from it.
People generally don’t set out to not know the Highway Code (HC). Even for those who have ever bothered to read it all the way through somewhere in the distant past, the memory fades unless there is a valid reason to keep remembering it or updating it. They’ll remember things like what a big “30” in the middle of a red and white circular sign means (whether they choose to obey it or not is a different matter). They see it every day. But ask them how far away from a junction they should park, or what they should or shouldn’t do at a humpbacked bridge, or even how big a gap they should leave between themselves and the car in front, and most will have only the vaguest of ideas at best.
Driving instructors have a better reason to know the HC in detail, but even then not all of them do (it’s arguable that none do – certainly when you start bringing interpretation into things). That’s because anything other than a very basic understanding requires effort – considerable continued effort – in order to maintain knowledge at a current and correct level. Often, the only stimulus to refresh knowledge for an instructor comes as a result of being asked a question by a pupil, followed by thumbing through the HC (and there’s nothing wrong with that).
Knowledge of the HC has always been a problem, though. I suppose the big difference is that 20 or 30 years ago, more people would have considered learning it as something worthwhile than you’re likely to find today. Hell, 30 years ago, more people could actually read, and had attention spans measured in the hours rather than the seconds.
But humour aside, comprehension is a major issue. It always has been for a significant portion of society. I’m not talking about people with special needs; I’m talking about typically-educated, normal people who simply don’t understand what they are reading when they aren’t really interested. Not everyone out there is a Top Gear fanatic, who drools over the latest Audi models and who has wet dreams about being given a Race Day gift voucher at Silverstone.
Put simply, the old method was probably worse than the current test simply because it only asked a few questions. It was certainly no better, for precisely the same reason. People could afford to gamble on not knowing it in detail, and they certainly didn’t need to understand it, because the questions asked were not all that varied – a lot less varied than with the modern-day Theory Test.
Much is made of the suggestion that current learners can memorise the answers, and this is the official reason why the DSA has recently stopped publishing the actual test questions.
I’ve mentioned before that this is total bollocks (not in those words). Anyone who could memorise nearly 1,000 questions with numerous and varied multiple choice answer combinations would have people queuing up to pickle their brains after they died. They would be rather unique.
The typical (note that: I said typical) learner today probably knows more about the HC at the time they sit their test than their counterpart of 20 years ago did when they were asked their handful of questions. The problem is that two weeks later, both of them would probably have forgotten most of it.
The only way of maintaining any kind of knowledge is, as I have said, to have a reason to refresh it. There are only three ways that is going to happen:
do it purely out of interest
do it for direct monetary reward (i.e. a bribe)
do it because you have to
The first one would only catch a small number of people. The second isn’t going to happen. So, if there is genuinely a major problem with HC knowledge, the only one of those things which will catch everyone is the one involving force!
In other words, periodic re-testing.
It still wouldn’t help with the comprehension issues. But then again, what would?
hich had just changed to green, intending to turn left. This dickhead saw me coming, processed the information in his (or her) tiny mind at half speed, and when they arrived at the condition “it’s got L plates”, they decided that meant they could go – and turned right across my path.
Yes, the Green Brigade HAS been up in arms. Yes, there HAS been a huge increase in cycling participation and yes, the roads ARE thick with them. Yes, London DOES have some of the busiest roads in the world and yes, people who buy bikes DO go straight out without a thought either for themselves or anyone else.