A new series (well, a single show) begins next week. Not much information in the press release, but it appears to feature two typical berks (note: that’s a general comment – I don’t know either of them) who couldn’t get on Big Brother (note: that’s an opinion built up after watching many similar shows), so went for this instead. It’s an hour long, so be prepared for the usual pointless filler material. Oh, and don’t be surprised if at least one of the “contestants” turn out to be more than two standard deviations away from the mean when it comes to being “normal” (note: that’s a further opinion built up from watching similar shows – there is going to have to be a hook of some sort).
Will the shock of what they experience help Jason & Laura change their ways for good?
No. They drive like that because they want to, yet are too stupid or arrogant to do anything about it.
I’ve had an email from one of the contestants who believes his driving is probably now better than mine as a result of taking part in this show. Mmm. I’ll wait until I see it next week before I comment on that – although I’ve never been bad enough to need to appear on a show like this in the first place, so he will have had to have made up a lot of ground compared to me.
However, as I said in my reply:
Don’t take it to heart.
I guess you can’t say too much prior to transmission, but why on earth would you want to put yourself in front of millions of viewers like that, rather than simply book a few refresher lessons with a local instructor if you feel you had something to learn?
These shows don’t choose boring, “normal” people. They choose extroverts – often with some sort of hook – who are selling themselves (or their hook). And such programmes do a major disservice to the industry that I work in. My comments were not personal, just general.
It does make you wonder, though. If you know you are a bad driver and claim you’re not proud of it, why go on TV in front of millions of people to show it off? Why not just take some lessons to fix the problem? Being crap on the roads is not a badge of honour, except among real lowlifes.
I mean, if you enter yourself for something like this, then you KNOW you have a problem. I guess that fixing it quietly just doesn’t get the same sort of publicity, does it?
The other contestant has written to me now. Apparently she is an actress (I told you there’d be hooks), and did the show for “all sorts of personal reasons”.
As I pointed out, my job is to try and teach young people enough about driving so that they don’t end up killing themselves (or other people). The TV companies are making that harder and harder by glamourizing bad driving on these shows. The average chav male sees it as a chance to show how hard he is. As for the chav girls… well, it gives them a chance to go on TV in their best clobber, if previous shows in this genre are anything to go by.
One person’s 15 minutes of fame is enough to encourage thousands of impressionable young people to seek the same publicity.
Back in January, I reported on an ASA ruling against Cycling Scotland. It concerned a promotional ad about giving cyclists room on the roads, and someone (five people, in fact) had complained that it was irresponsible because the rider in question wasn’t wearing a helmet and was effectively blocking the road.
I ought to point out that my only beef with cyclists is how they get in the way, and I’m increasingly of the opinion that the vast majority are stupid and do it on purpose, while the rest of them are simply stupid. Personally, I don’t give two hoots about the content of these kinds of ads beyond the fact that cycling on roads shouldn’t be encouraged any further because it’s too dangerous for everyone concerned – cyclist and motorist – and there are too many cyclists venturing out on to busy roads as it is.
Anyway, actually getting to view the Cycling Scotland video isn’t as straightforward as you’d expect, though I’m pretty sure I could view it earlier this year. Oh yes, it’s on YouTube, but certainly when I follow the link I get the message shown here that I’m not allowed to view it in my country! Strange, when you consider that it’s actually been posted by Cycling Scotland (or the agency acting on their behalf), and Scotland isn’t independent just yet. Clearly, someone somewhere has ideas well above their station. However, as I said in the earlier article, Cycling Scotland was appealing against the original ASA ruling. I also said that it was clear that politics was involved, and this ban on anyone in England seeing the ad is precisely the type of thing I meant.
I also predicted that ASA would kowtow to Cycling Scotland, and so it has transpired in this new ruling. The original ASA page is no longer online – which is, in itself, highly suspect, as it should have been left so that the history involved was transparent.
As a result of these shady goings on, I have no doubt that there are some out there who would happily attempt to sue me if I posted the full video on the blog. However, my legal adviser has indicated that a snippet of the video is completely acceptable, so here’s the offending part.
My first observation was that cyclists round my way definitely don’t look like that! Most would look more at home swinging through the trees instead of gracing a catwalk. But I digress. The woman riding the bike isn’t wearing a helmet and – more importantly – she is riding right in the middle of the road. The ASA originally agreed this was irresponsible advertising when they ruled against it back in January, and I guess this is one reason why they have removed that original ruling so that no one can compare it side-by-side with the new 180-degree one (i.e. one that is the exact opposite of the former). Even so, they say:
We acknowledged Cycling Scotland’s explanation regarding why the cyclist featured in the final scene of the ad was placed in the primary position and that this was an appropriate position to depict the cyclist in given the specific road conditions.
I see. And young children will be fully aware of this and not think it’s OK to ride in the middle of the road. Nice one, ASA.
But this comment from Cycling Scotland really made me laugh:
Cycling Scotland further commented that cycling had a high benefit:disbenefit ratio, even when factoring in injuries and referred to the national cycling charity (CTC) report.
I would counter that this statement has a high stupid:disstupid ratio, even when factoring in the obvious politics involved. The Highway Code says:
66
You should:
be considerate of other road users…
Riding in the middle of the road, blocking traffic, putting yourself in danger, and forcing others into danger as they overtake wide (especially on country lanes, as depicted here) has been “overlooked” by the ASA. I wonder how much pressure was put on them to do so?
I don’t know why, but in the last few days I have had dozens of complete tossers doing the most stupid things around me and my pupils.
I already wrote about the silver Toyota (reg. SJI 5262) which had parked in the full knowledge that they were causing a major blockage outside the Methodist Church on Rivergreen in Clifton. I noticed today that No Waiting signs have been fixed to the fence now, so it will be interesting to see which idiots ignore those, or if they bring their wire cutters to remove them (having already stolen the cones).
Then there was the black Mercedes, reg. X922 DCU, which dangerously overtook, then undertook, and then cut another car up on Manvers Street today. The driver looked like a potato with a walnut stapled to it. If the police are looking in, they might want to pull this prat over and do a check on his window tints – the front ones look illegal.
There was also the bronze Honda Civic, reg. ET57 TBO, driven by an Indian woman which pulled out extremely dangerously at the Dunkirk roundabout and headed down University Boulevard. My pupil was almost in front of her when she decided to go.
Next, there was the black Renault Clio, reg. FH63 EFP, which cut us up dangerously at the Wheatcroft roundabout.
Similarly, a red Fiesta, reg. FJ10 TDZ, cut us up even more dangerously on Radcliffe Road in West Bridgford.
Let’s not forget the blue Mazda 3, reg. ND54 UWH, which overtook at speed – on a bend – on Pennyfoot Street in the City Centre.
And then there was the red Ford Ka, drive by a zit face, reg. YF55 NLC, which overtook at high speed near a crossing and over speed bumps in Clifton. Definitely one for the police to keep an eye out for.
But probably the best one has to be the woman in the blue Meriva, reg. FP53 TYG. We were driving past the top shops in Clifton, where they have installed the high-kerb tram islands, and where the lanes are only wide enough for one car (or a tram), and this stupid bitch stopped – right in the middle of the road – to let one of her offspring out. The kid then ran across the road to the shops right in front of us. The woman – probably the unfit mother (based on observation of what I saw) of the child in question – then attempted to stop in the bus bay, thought better of it, then did a dangerous U-turn at the T-junction where the roundabout used to be. Her indicators were going left and right like disco lights. It’s dangerous enough just turning left or right – but a U-turn? Rather than the police, I’d suggest that the Social Services should be looking into this one.
All this occurred in the last two days. A few others got lucky, in that I couldn’t remember what they’d done when I came to look at my hastily scribbled notes. Perhaps next time, eh?
Darren William Jackson, 21, raced through a red traffic light and smashed into a metal railing. The car was effectively written off. Jackson apparently did something else, and a witness reported it to police, who found him sitting in the car. He drove off but was traced a short time later. He failed a roadside breath test, but refused to give further breath specimens when at the station.
He only held a provisional licence and was therefore uninsured.
In court, his vehicle was confiscated and he was jailed for six months. He was further banned for two years, and ordered to take an extended test after that.
Mind you, it appears that pleas in mitigation are as lame in Scotland as they are anywhere else.
Solicitor Anika Jethwa admitted that Jackson had a record of previous offences for road traffic matters, although none for drink-driving or driving dangerously.
She said: “His last road traffic offence was in 2010. He bought the car and was taking driving lessons twice a week. He wanted to pass his test to try to find employment.”
His solicitor asked for a “community based” sentence on the strength of this:
…Ms Jethwa said Jackson has two children and appears to offend mainly when he has been consuming alcohol.
“He had stopped drinking but on that day he had been at his friend’s father’s funeral and alcohol was taken,” she said.
I like it. He’s “stopped drinking”, but was pissed and could have killed someone. Like I say, Scottish justice is much better than ours.
As well as being (“allegedly”) the kind of scumbag who didn’t pay for his lessons in the first place, the learner then decided that punching his instructor in the face would be a good way of managing the situation. But this new candidate for the 2014 Darwin Awards couldn’t let it go there. Because when his 56-year old instructor attempted to call the police as the halfwit tried to make off, he then decided that the best way of handling this new development would be to return and continue the attack, then steal the car.
It would have been the perfect crime if the instructor hadn’t have had the idiot’s home address, and it appears that the police arrested him quite easily as a result of that small detail. The car has not yet been traced, though it is bright red and is emblazoned with the driving school’s livery.
The 22-year old imbecile from Erdington, Birmingham, was arrested on suspicion of robbery and assault and is being questioned by police.
I can’t wait until we find out this saddo’s name. I’ll add it to this story when we do.
I thought our legal system was bad enough, but Australia’s appears even worse – particularly if you come from, say, Taiwan.
Meghan Hopper is the daughter of a prominent local businessman in Queensland. She was arseing about with her iPhone (apparently using Google Maps) when she slammed into Taiwanese fruit-pickers Chen-Chuan Yang and Kwan-Jun Wu. Yang was killed, and Wu severely injured. Hopper said she did not see either of the innocent parties. She was 17-years old and driving on P plates at the time.
Laughably, Hopper was awarded a 30-month suspended sentence for all this.
The sentence was considered to be too lenient by the Attorney-General (AG) and it was appealed. The AG said:
I appealed the sentence of Ms Hopper because I felt her sentence was manifestly inadequate,
I note the Court of Appeal agreed that ordinarily this offence would demand a sentence of imprisonment.
Incredibly, the appeal was lost and the court ruled that the original sentence would stand. The AG subsequently added:
Even so, the court [of appeal] did not hand down a prison sentence and I must respect its decision.
He also added that he had no further avenue of appeal.
To make matters worse, a “respected” former traffic cop has waded in. I’ve put the word “respected” in inverted commas because Garry Church, the person referred to, is a long-time friend of Hopper’s uncle. So obviously he is TOTALLY unbiased on the subject. He is also completely devoid of any logic, and you can only offer thanks to whatever God you believe in that you never had someone like this working against you. He says:
“I don’t by any means condone what Meghan has done in taking a life and seriously injuring another, and I certainly don’t condone the second incident where she was caught using a mobile in the Brisbane area.
“Having a driving licence means you take a big responsibility when entering our road for yourself and other road users and this responsibility shouldn’t be taken lightly.”
But he said he did not believe sending a young person for jail was warranted in this case as it did not involve speed, alcohol or any deliberate act.
Have you ever heard such complete bollocks in your life? In the UK, what Hopper did would have got her sent away for up to 14 years (though being a woman, our Courts would probably have gone for a sentence way down at the lower end).
And it gets even worse. Five months after her spoilt brat attitude killed Yang, she was stopped in Brisbane by police after she was caught using her mobile phone while driving.
The Appeal Court totally ignored that detail, or the fact that she clearly hadn’t learned any sort of lesson. Her well-to-do family hired a lawyer who – at the original trial:
…put in a sterling performance and kept the teen out of the big house.
His address was professional and impeccable.
He told the court Hopper had “found religion” since the incident. Looks like she forgot it again when she was driving around Brisbane.
The stupidity doesn’t stop there. At the appeal:
The Queensland Court of Appeal on Friday dismissed Mr Bleijie’s [the AG] appeal despite all three justices agreeing the sentence was manifestly inadequate.
Two of them exercised their discretion not to interfere based on Hopper’s rehabilitation attempts and psychologist visits since sentence.
The Aussie judges are on a more distant planet than UK ones, it seems. How can you agree that the sentence is inadequate, then turn down an appeal to have it sharpened?
Justice Hugh Fraser said new evidence showed Hopper had benefited from not having a custodial sentence.
Yes, and she showed what benefit that was 5 months later when she was caught using a phone at the wheel of her car. Again.
Apparently, there are over 7,000 other people serving jail terms in Australia for lesser crimes than this. It is worth reading that whole article just to get a handle on how stupid the Australian legal system appears to be, especially over this affair.
Let’s just go into theoretical territory a moment. Nothing to do with Hopper or her wealthy family with it’s obvious connections to the local police force, you understand. You can imagine how – if you had the right connections, and if the courts were corrupt enough to respond to such connections – you could put sufficient pressure on them to get an ultra-soft sentence for a crime which would ordinarily warrant a much harsher outcome. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
One thing we can conclude with some confidence. The life of a Taiwanese fruit-picker is worth a lot less than that of a dumb and spoilt little Australian rich girl as far as this Australian court is concerned. I wonder if they’d have behaved as leniently if it had been a Taiwanese fruit-picker who had slammed into Meghan Hopper? I doubt it.
As regular readers will know, I have little time for people who drive badly (especially on purpose) in spite of what some looney mystery cyclists may believe. So this story in The Telegraph gave me a good chuckle.
It seems that some half-witted 17-year old up in Scotland was following the standard script to the letter when he crashed his Honda pratmobile a week after passing his test. Make no bones about it, it WAS a pratmobile – as the picture before the accident shows. And Honda Civics are at the top of the must-have pratmobile list for most boy racers. His father, Steven Clark, was not impressed.
Due to Son thinking he’s Colin McRae I now have a 2000 Honda Civic 1.4 breaking for spares…
It Seems a 1.4 was to much for him to handle
He talked the talk, but certainly didn’t walk the walk (he will be walking now, for a long time)
If only all roads were straight, we as parents wouldn’t have to worry about our over enthusiastic Son’s
It seems his ambition outweighed his talent on this occasion
I can’t think why! he’s been driving for over a week now……………………………..
Included in anything you may buy!
One FOC 17yr old Boy, complete with black eye? not from accident, administered by myself!
None of the press coverage I have seen has included that last part. Let’s hope the dad doesn’t get into any trouble over it if it’s true, because it’s certainly deserved.
Nathaniel Clark wasn’t hurt in the accident. He lost it on a bend (big surprise) because the difference between his own opinion of his driving skills and the reality was huge, but reckons he was driving slowly. It also turns out he rides a dirt bike, so it doesn’t take much effort to assess his attitude from afar.
Apparently, he apologised to his mother, but not his dad – to whom his plaintive cry is:
Dad, why are you doing this to me?
Clearly, he’s not very bright, either, if he can’t work that one out.
On a slightly different note, the car cost £1,700 and a further £1,600 to insure. The parents paid for it all. And this is where it makes me wonder what parents are thinking when they buy pratmobiles for their kids in the first place.
This story came through on the newsfeeds. It’s totally mislabelled as it does not – in any way, shape, or form – show “Britain’s Worst Drivers”. That label is merely a demonstration of the crass ignorance of the Yahoo! hacks who wrote it.
It concerns a video montage created by an anonymous cyclist with a helmet camera, titled “York Drivers”. The cyclist in question seems to be one of those people for whom a little knowledge is clearly a dangerous thing, because in his attempts to discredit drivers he has inadvertently shown quite clearly how recklessly cyclists – including himself – behave on the roads.
I’ve linked to the video below – click the image and YouTube will open in a new window – and it will be interesting to see if it remains on view when he realises how vividly it highlights his own shortcomings.
[EDIT: The video is no longer available – there’s a surprise. However, the comedian who took it hasn’t managed to get it wiped from the news story in the link above.]
Let’s be clear about this – many of the drivers in the video could hardly be regarded as particularly adept behind the wheel. Even so, very few of them could be said to be demonstrating anything other than normal behaviour. The problem is that all of the cyclists involved are behaving exactly the same, if not worse!
The very first example in the montage shows a cyclist attempting to undertake a car at a left-turn junction. The car doesn’t indicate – but anyone, be they cyclist or motorist – should know that you do not overtake near a junction, and that undertaking is especially dangerous.
The second clip shows an oncoming van turning right – and he’s signalling. The dipstick with the headcam hasn’t considered the fact that he was riding at speed whilst hidden from the oncoming driver’s sight behind another van. The van driver couldn’t possibly have seen him, and he – the cyclist – should have been much more careful.
Numerous other clips are focused on cars parked on double yellow lines, but none of this slows down our cameraman very much, and he does not stop for a second. He’d much rather squeeze through tiny gaps when the safest thing to do would be not to. Bearing in mind he has a camera on his head, there doesn’t appear to be much (i.e., any) shoulder-checking before passing any of these obstacles. He also sounds like one of those riders who has a little too much testosterone in his veins, and you can hear him muttering and grunting at everything.
In another clip, he rides on to a roundabout without any consideration for his own safety, and then grunts again when a car turns in front of him without signalling. Perhaps he hasn’t heard of the Highway Code (what am I saying, he’s a cyclist – the Highway Code doesn’t apply to him), and the part where it says you should never rely on people’s signals (and, by implication, lack thereof).
Just after that, he appears to ride off a cycle path and on to a pedestrian-only pavement and has an issue with a car that has U-turned back into a road, preventing him from shooting straight across the junction (and over double yellow lines, because there is no cycle junction there).
Later in the video, he homes in on people using mobile phones behind the wheel. In doing this, his camera shows other cyclists riding at speed in heavy traffic out of the designated cycle lane. In one example, a female is riding much faster than the traffic, which is virtually at a standstill in a queue. This is suicidal if a car tries to cut across and doesn’t see you – which is more likely if the cyclist is flying up on the inside, hidden behind other cars. It’s even more questionable when you’ve got a camera on your head, are craning your neck specifically to get footage of the drivers breaking the Law as you whizz by and have already identified that said drivers might not be paying attention because they’re farting about with their phones.
Near the end, the cameraman is screaming at drivers who are actually nowhere near as close to him as he seems to think they are. One clip suggests that there is a cycle path off the road, which he isn’t using, and he wonders why he is almost flattened by a lorry. He even appears to have moved over into the mouth of the junction to give a lorry space before it goes past.
As I said, the standard of driving depicted in the video is no worse than you’d find anywhere in the country. That doesn’t mean that it is particularly good or right, but it is part of the norm – and anyone on a bike who had any sense would try to avoid it rather than go pelting in as if they had special privileges, and then wondering why they almost got killed. In many of the clips, the anonymous cyclist in question is at least as much in the wrong as the drivers he has filmed. In most of the others he (or other cyclists) can certainly be seen to be less than lily white.
Maybe I should put up my own video of the routine behaviour I experience with cyclists. If I wanted to put them in a poor light, I wouldn’t have to edit much out.
I originally embedded the video in this article using YouTube’s embed code. The anonymous cyclist has been in contact with me threatening litigation, even though I pointed out that embedding the video was within YouTube’s terms of service. Said anonymous cyclist has also been demanding my name so he can “report me to ORDIT” because of my “dangerous attitude”.
I had to draw his attention to the use of various words and phrases in the above text which clearly identify that the motorists in many of the clips were in the wrong (at least in part). However, he seems to take exception to the fact that I also pointed out that virtually all the cyclists were also at fault, and that such behaviour – from both cyclists AND motorists – is relatively normal and is something that has to be dealt with when it happens. After all, martyrs cannot pursue matters using more sensible means.
I have spoken to my legal advisers, and it has been pointed out that although the article as it stood was not in breach of any copyright, if the owner of the YouTube page removed the embed code feature without warning, then it might become so. I reasoned that in order for someone to try and save face over this article they might resort to such actions in order to create an issue where there was none before. The anonymous cyclist has been openly sharing his video with anyone who holds the same views as him, but he appears to be prepared to adopt different methods for those who hold a different opinion. For that reason, I have now provided a direct link to the YouTube page where the video resides. If you click the image, above, it will take you there – or click this link to get the same page[EDIT: The video is no longer available – there’s a surprise. However, the comedian who took it hasn’t managed to get it wiped from the news story in the link at the start of this article]. Alternatively, go to YouTube and search for “York Drivers”. This is DEFINITELY not litigatious in any way – either now, or in future.
It’s funny that the Vigilante Cyclist has removed the video from YouTube. I bet he wishes he’d kept his mouth shut before submitting it to the media, because he can’t get it wiped from their archives quite so easily.
This story has appeared on several newsfeeds over the last couple of days, and it deals with the frightening number of troglodytes out there who don’t understand what road signs mean. An example:
James Barter, from Southampton, Hants, admits struggling to identify some of the road signs – despite passing his test ten years ago.
The 28-year-old said: ‘I passed my driving test when I was 18 and I still struggle to tell what certain signs mean.
‘There are so many and some of the signs are not very clear or obvious.’
A higher primate would find out what a sign means if they saw one they didn’t understand. Clearly, this guy is different, and represents just about everything that is wrong with society today. How the hell can he go on driving unsupervised if he doesn’t understand basic road signs? What else about driving doesn’t he understand? Why couldn’t (and didn’t) he look up those he didn’t understand? That way – and it is a simple 5-minute task reading the Highway Code to find out – he wouldn’t have had to reveal in a national newspaper that he was such a bad driver.
The large-scale confusion over road signs comes weeks after Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin called for hundreds of thousands of ‘pointless’ signs to be torn down.
Some signs may be pointless – but that doesn’t make them meaningless (as an aside, McLoughlin should be ordering that they be torn down instead of just prattling on about them). The problem with superfluous road signs is down to incompetent local councils (of which Nottingham possesses a prime example). The typical forest of signs that can cause confusion is usually associated with cycle or pedestrian areas, and is the direct result of immature and unintelligent people in local government anxious to make some sort of mark as they pursue their incoherent and politically correct agenda.
Some of my pupils worry me from time to time, though. I remember several years ago a girl who had passed her theory test and who had her practical coming up. I often had to remind her of the speed limit on one particular stretch where the limit changed from 50mph to the national speed limit (NSL). On one lesson after many weeks of lessons I remember her asking on that same stretch: “what does that sign mean?”. It was the NSL sign. And I lose count of the times on lessons where I ask pupils who have either passed their theory or who have it coming up what a particular sign means and they simply don’t know.
It also reminds me of a Chinese pupil I once had who, for all practical purposes, couldn’t speak English (what a nightmare those lessons were). She passed her Theory Test – in English – the first time, which is a feat beyond quite a few of my English-speaking pupils. On one occasion, where after prompting from me she failed to spot a huge, illuminated 30mph sign, I managed to ascertain that when she “panicked” she “saw things in Chinese”. It was areal eye-opener, and I use it as an example to all my learners that road signs MUST speak to them loudly and clearly in words, without any lengthy translation being required.
Spooky. I’m getting a flood of hits yet again in 2023 on a ten year old story.
Candidate for the 2014 Darwin Awards, Aaron Wintin, 18, was showing off to his friends. Wintin was one of that breed of person too stupid to be able to pass a driving test, so just drove without a licence as he saw fit. When police saw him driving and tried to pull him over, he reversed at them, attempted to hide in a barn, and then drove through villages at speeds of up to 120mph.
Police caught him with a stinger device, and he continued to drive at 70mph until his tyres shredded.
Laughably, his four young passengers were said to be “shaken”. Of course they were, the little darlings – though I bet they wouldn’t have been making such a pathetic claim if they hadn’t all been caught. After all, they could easily have got out of the car while Wintin was hiding in the barn for 30 minutes. This all happened at 3am when these little dears should have been at home in bed.
Wintin’s character is easily ascertained when you consider that he was already on a conditional discharge for criminal damage. Yet another pathetic mitigating plea was heard:
Jonathan Straw, defending, said Wintin, who is due to become a father in July, lost his job as a chicken catcher after his employer learned of his court appearance.
He urged the court to impose a suspended sentence, adding: “He is just 18 with no real experience of the criminal courts and no experience of custody. The overall effect on his future life will be grave.”
The court wasn’t taken in by this crap. Wintin was sentenced to six months at a young offenders’ institution and banned for four years. It’s just a shame his passengers – who were clearly from the same low strata in society – weren’t given similar sentences.
Incidentally, I am getting a surge of hits on this story as of December 2014. Six months after I wrote the piece, and multiple hits daily. I wonder why?
The Appeal Court totally ignored that detail, or the fact that she clearly hadn’t learned any sort of lesson. Her well-to-do family hired a lawyer who – at the original trial: