An internal flight from Washington to Denver was stuck in Wyoming due to a thunderstorm. So the pilot, Gerhard Bradner, ordered pizzas for all 160 passengers. He paid for it out of his own pocket, too (in the UK, I reckon that would come to at least £150).
Almost as heart-warming is the fact that when the airline’s president heard about it, he informed Bradner that he will be fully reimbursed.
That’s what Surepass are advertising! And I wonder how long this advertisement in the Bromsgrove Advertiser stays up if the ASA gets wind of it?
I don’t have a problem with people advertising instructor training. I don’t care if its an individual or a large school, and as long as they qualify their claims, they can dangle whatever carrots they like. The reason for this is that the vast majority of instructors fail at a business level – and that’s assuming that they even make it through the three exams and qualify in the first place.
I’m uneasy about this Surepass advert for several reasons. Firstly, it is advertised under “catering – hospitality” and “retail – wholesale”, and it is described as “job type – permanent”. Being a driving instructor is none of those things. The first two are just clumsy, and the last one is completely wrong (unless Surepass are actually employing salaried instructors now). Instructors are self-employed, not employed.
We’re also back to the old “salary: £20,000 to £30,000 /year” claims. While this isn’t technically wrong, it is extremely misleading. There is no way a £30,000 salary can be guaranteed when the person earning it is selling lessons for £20 an hour, and having to provide a car and fuel. It’s possible, but you simply cannot guarantee it. £20,000 is a far more realistic claim, especially for a new instructor. However, if you look at their instructor pages they also talk of £40,000 and even £45,000 a year gross earnings! Maybe they need a lesson in the differences between turnover and income, as they seem to be getting them mixed up.
Surepass also make some very strong claims. They reckon they have a 90% pass rate for Part 3, and further claim that this is 67% higher than the industry average. They also refer to a “guaranteed income”. As I say, unless they are employing people rather than selling franchises this is a very tenuous claim (the ad actually says you will be franchised).
The advert also refers to a “guaranteed car”, though I couldn’t see a car option in any of their franchise packages, nor is one mentioned on their instructor training pages. The maximum gross earnings figure appears to increase the bigger the franchise you sign up to.
However, the biggest problem with the ad is the use of the word “free”. Every occurrence is marked with an asterisk, which means that there are conditions attached. But nowhere in the ad are these conditions explained. Indeed, when you click the “Apply Now” button, you’re informed that it costs £2,500, and there is still no explanation of the word “free”. I guess that to find out you have to actually apply, and that is surely not right.
I’ve predicted several times this year that there is likely to be a new rush to offer instructor training, and this is the sort of thing I was referring to.
This is in the Irish Independent, but it relates to a UK driver. It reports that a 79-year old man driving a Mitsubishi Shogun was involved in a crash on the A26 in East Sussex last month. When police arranged for a test (not sure if it was roadside, as he had to be cut free from the wreckage after he collided with a lorry), it emerged that he could only read a number plate from a distance of 1 metre!
I can’t even create a scaled graphic to illustrate the severity of this – the red dot arrow is about 3 metres in relation to the longer 20 metre one!
You’re supposed to be able to read a new style number plate at 20 metres (correct at the time of writing), yet this senile idiot – who hasn’t been named, though he should have been – could barely see a plate at less than a 20th of that distance. For all practical purposes, he was blind. His licence was immediately revoked – presumably under Cassie’s Law. At least now this old fool isn’t likely to kill anyone. Hopefully, he will be prosecuted, too.
I have absolutely no sympathy for these people. And still you get those comedians (usually getting old themselves) who believe that older drivers are not worthy of any kind of special testing to make sure they aren’t lying through their teeth about their fitness to drive. It’s “ageist”, they say.
Older drivers are far more likely to become liabilities on the road purely as a function of getting old. It doesn’t matter how poorly new or young drivers behave – it’s a totally separate issue. Nor does it matter how many centuries the decrepit older driver has gone without having an accident. The simple fact is that as we age, we tend towards biological malfunction and eventual collapse (i.e. death). Once you’re over 70, you’re a darn sight closer to total collapse than you are of winning Wimbledon.
Unfortunately, the brain also begins to slide as you get older, and it would appear than this prevents some elderly drivers recognising their weaknesses. Of course, most just knowingly lie in order to keep their licence.
This story beggars belief. Jack Powell was 18, and had passed his test a mere two weeks earlier. He was busy following the script those of his kind live their lives by, and “lost control” of his Renault Clio on a bend.
Just as an aside, there is a massive statistical blip in the accident figures which explains why 17-24 year olds pay sky-high insurance premiums. The most common accident this group experiences is:
on a bend
at night
on a rural road
more than one occupant in the car
no other car involved
In Powell’s case, only the “at night” one was missing from his performance. Unfortunately, although no other car actually caused Powell to lose control, another car did bear the brunt of his pathetic driving skills after he’d lost it.
Kiri Jade Hodgkinson, 14, was a front seat passenger in Powell’s car. She died at the scene. Powell smashed into a Renault Megane travelling the opposite way and this resulted in the death of the passenger, Barbara Ford, 67. A 13-year old girl in the back seat of Powell’s car broke both legs and an ankle. In any right-minded country, Powell would now be looking for ways to justify that he be allowed a PlayStation to while away the hours of a substantial jail sentence. Instead:
Today magistrates handed him a 12 month Community Order with 250 hours unpaid work. He was also given a nine month curfew and a five year disqualification from driving, with an order to have an extended retest before being allowed a return to driving.
Comments by the Police are notable for the absence of any indication that they are happy with this outcome.
This rubbish driver has effectively got away with killing two people. They should have locked him up and thrown away the key. He’s effectively a killer.
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?
The thing is, the contractors haven’t been working nights or weekends for 95% of the time the disruption has been in place. However, I noticed that over the last few weeks this is no longer the case. It’s obvious that they were behind – from the various reported delays that have added months to the completion dates, to the amount of work that had obviously still got to be done. After all, it’s hard to keep defending dozens of kilometres of scorched earth with “it’ll be ready by Christmas” when the scorched earth in question still has deep holes with reinforced sides for sewer and drainage work, most of which have been in the exact same state for at least the last six months.
Being a tram worker is a real cushy number, as well. From what I’ve seen it seems to involve standing around all day texting on your phone and eating bacon sandwiches. Of course, the period I call “a day” has – until recently – only involved the time between 10am and 3pm Monday to Friday.
The tram is a waste of money, and all the people involved with it are not the best examples of efficient workers.
All of the above is “alleged”, of course. The people in question might instead be wonderful individuals who will get the tram finished on time, who work nights and weekends and have done since the work started, who don’t spend all day eating and texting, and so on. This is just for balance, of course.
They put this out for consultation a few months ago. Amongst various things, they were asking for opinions about cutting the price of the Theory Test, which currently costs a mere £31 (well, a bit more if you’re stupid and pay for it via a scam site).
In my response, I made it clear that as far I was concerned the current price was fine as it was. Unfortunately, someone somewhere is after votes for next year’s General Election and dropping the price is the chestnut they were going to roast come hell or high water. The “consultation” was just a pointless exercise to show that they “listen” to the public.
As you can see in the DVSA email alert I linked to above:
The cost of the driving theory test will be cut by 25%, saving learner drivers over £100 million over the next 9 years.
Let’s just set the record straight here. That “£100 million over the next 9 years” is going to be split between around 13 million tests. It isn’t going to save ANY learner more than £8 for each time they attempt the test. That doesn’t look anywhere near as vote worthy, does it? A mere £8 versus £100 million. It’s also going to be phased, with £6 coming off this October, and another £2 next year.
And don’t even get me started on how it doesn’t save anyone anything if they never had to pay the higher fee in the first place. That’s like saying that when I go out and buy a pocket calculator for £5, I am saving over £80 because of how much they used to cost when they first came out. I’m not saving anything.
The real point is that the theory test lasts about 90 minutes, which breaks down to around £21 per hour. Allowing for building rent, systems maintenance, staff salaries (at least two staff), and so on, it is hard to see how the test can possibly be maintained for even £21 an hour, let alone £15 instead. I know enough about outsourcing to understand the true costs involved, and someone somewhere is ultimately losing money on this – or they will if the market shifts unpredictably in the medium term future.
Alastair Peoples can go on forever about having “secured” a lower price for the outsourcing contract (from which one must conclude that Pearson VUE has lost the contract, or else what the hell were they charging for up until now?) It is Stephen Hammond – LibCon Transport Minister – on a vote hunt which is at the root:
We want to keep costs down for all motorists – that’s why we have frozen fuel duty – and by reducing the cost of the theory test we will save aspiring motorists around £9 million annually.
As I say, it’s total bollocks. No one is saving “£9 million annually”. Each learner will save a mere £6 (going up to £8 in 18 months’ time) each time they take a test – and even then, if they turn 17 after the price falls, they have saved NOTHING. The only positive thing is that someone somewhere else is going to have to squander £9 million less than they have been doing previously.
One from the newsfeeds drags the old chestnut about teaching 11-year olds to drive. I’ve written about this before, most recently last year, but it goes back further.
Let’s not try and disguise the fact that the main beneficiaries are the people who provide these lessons – not those who take them. A normal, quality learner lesson costs about £23-£25, but these things are charged at £60 an hour. There is absolutely no way the vast majority of those taking them are going to get up to test standard at that price, and the “lessons” amount to little more than a ride round a go-kart track in a real car. Indeed, I recently took on a pupil who had had one of these sessions, and in absolute honesty you couldn’t tell. She was no different to someone who’d sat in the car on a driveway or in a car park with mum or dad and made the car go forward a bit.
That was in 2012. He will be 13 now, and still has at least four years to go before he can drive legally. Unless mummy and daddy have kept up the lessons (and they’ll have forked out up to £1,500 by now even at one lesson a month, assuming he hasn’t got bored of driving round the same circuit) he will have done nothing.
This current story is almost an exact parallel:
[name removed] is 11 and was very excited at the prospect of driving a car for the first time.
I’ll bet he was. And I’ll also bet that it will come as a major disappointment when he realises that unless mummy and daddy have very deep pockets, it will also be the last time for at least the next six years. Well, legally, anyway.
Then there is this comment:
Given [name removed] is just 5ft he was given three cushions to make sure he was high enough to see over the steering wheel and reach the all important pedals.
Or, in other words, he is too small to drive safely in the first place. And even then, going by the photo, he is barely at eye-level with the steering wheel.
And the most telling comment:
As the hour lesson goes on his confidence is clearly building and we are getting quicker.
Oh dear. Getting “quicker”. And there we have the common denominators in the majority of accidents involving new drivers – over-confident and too fast for their ability.
These courses do absolutely nothing to help children’s’ Immature and juvenile minds, and they simply cannot handle adult activities like driving. Nor should they be expected to, and they definitely shouldn’t be encouraged to try.
These days you don’t get people who you could genuinely class as comedy legends, but if you did, Rik Mayall would be up there. So, it was very, very sad to read of his sudden death earlier today at the relatively young age of just 56.
He first hit the big time in the 80s in the cult TV show, The Young Ones. That show was essential viewing to any teenager at the time – and to be honest, it still is on the frequent re-runs on UK Gold. He also had cameo roles in several Blackadder shows.
They don’t know what the cause of his death was yet, but it isn’t being treated as suspicious in any way. He had apparently been unwell since a quad-bike accident about 15 years ago.
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.
