Back then, there were almost 7,500 deaths each year on the roads. The figure is around 1,750 today. The only major changes since 1934 have been the mandatory use of speedometers and safety glass (1937) and compulsory seatbelts (1983). In 1990 it became Law that supervising drivers must be 21 or older and have held a full licence for three years, and this apparently resulted in a major fall in accidents. A written theory test was introduced in 1996, and the Hazard Perception Test in 2002.
One comment in this news source intrigued me:
…the fatality figure last year stood at 1,754, and although there is still some way to go before we see an end to deaths on our roads, the figure proves that legislation works.
So it appears that someone somewhere is expecting – in all seriousness – that road casualties will eventually reach 0%. People really do talk nonsense sometimes. I’ve got more chance of winning the Lottery every week from now until the day I die than that has of happening. It’s a totally unrealistic target. Someone needs to look up the meaning of the word “accident”.
A new documentary is scheduled to be shown on 10 April 2014 on ITV (10.35 pm). It promises to “delve into the murky world” of test fraud and illegal driving. It follows the DSA’s Fraud & Integrity Team and the press release suggest the problem is far deeper than you’d imagine, and that the people behind it will go to any lengths to commit such fraud.
I recently recounted my experiences with a scammers’ collective, consisting of private scammers sending out bogus parking tickets to car park users, and higher level scammers posing as a city council denying all responsibility – presumably so long as they’re reaping the benefits of any ground rent from the scammers themselves.
Well, this story reveals that Coventry City Council appears to dwell at roughly the same level in the slime at the bottom of the pond as these scammers I’ve had dealings with. It appears that two drivers (instructors, actually) were ticketed for driving in a poorly marked bus lane. Cutting a long story short, they took it to a traffic penalty tribunal and won – yet the appeal was uncontested by Coventry City Council.
This is the proof that Coventry City Council – and all others involved in these scams – need their wings clipping sooner rather than later. I’ve had my own dealings with Rushcliffe Borough Council when I once accidentally typed in “61” instead of “62” when I bought a parking ticket and they refused to overturn the fine. All of these people are lying, cheating, thieving scam merchants. All they want is your money, and they’ll twist and manipulate the regulations in order to beat it out of you.
Incidentally, Coventry City Council changed the markings after the appeal process started. However, they deny it had anything to do with the markings being wrong!
We are not considering refunds. The lines have been altered because of the pilot with motorbikes using them, not for any legal reason, and the signs were compliant legally.
Well, obviously they weren’t legal, were they? Otherwise the appeal would have failed, or Coventry City Council would have contested it. As it is, they have effectively admitted it was bogus by not arguing their corner. And in just one month from the date when the bus lane opened, the council snatched nearly £100,000 from those it had scammed with its incompetent road marking scheme.
If anyone has ever tried to wade through the slime that conceals the structure behind these schemes they will know that it is often easier just to accept the fine and walk away. Coventry City Council knows that, the scammers at that UKCPS car park in Leeds know it, as does the Leeds City Council, and Rushcliffe Borough Council (aka Nottingham City Council) knows it. And those are just the ones I have first hand knowledge of. It’s deliberate obstruction.
As was reported in October last year, the option to take theory or practical tests in languages other than English or Welsh will no longer be available from 7 April 2014. This means that theory tests will not have voiceovers, and practical tests will not be conducted with interpreters. English and Welsh theory test voiceovers for special needs candidates will still be available, and it will still be possible to use a BSL interpreter if you require it.
A few weeks ago The Old Angel pub was forced to cancel a Valentine’s Day event it was organising called “Bag a Slag, Grab a Hag”. The organiser was one of the female staff and it was just a bit of fun, offering those taking part free drinks.
The important thing to bear in mind here is that you can safely bet that a significant proportion of those taking part would have been neither slags or hags. That’s why it was simply a “fun” event. But that didn’t stop the local Feminist Action Network (FAN) representative, Ruth Greenburg, from asking:
Is that all women are – slags and hags?
You can safely conclude that FAN is completely devoid of any sense of humour whatsoever. And Nottingham City Council also showed its true colours yet again by trumping up the charges and effectively threatening the landlord’s licence.
It was interesting, therefore, to see this new BBC story today reporting that student feminist campaigners had succeeded in getting newspapers like The Sun and The Daily Star banned from Student Union shops on the University campus. And all because of Page 3.
Francesca Garforth, who led the campaign group University of Nottingham Feminists with Jo Lockwood Estrin, said it was simply wrong to use suggestive pictures as a way of selling papers.
“It takes the idea that this woman has an opinion and is allowed to voice it because she’s also got her breasts out,” she said.
Miss Estrin said: “The amount of people it harms – one in seven women on university campuses in the UK are raped or seriously sexually assaulted and we do believe that it is a link to these kinds of images being normalised.
“Seeing these images on a day-to-day basis normalises the idea that women are there and voiceless.”
Well, I suppose everyone is entitled to their 15 minutes of fame. Meanwhile, the women who choose to appear on Page 3 will, of course, continue to make wads of money in spite of Garforth and Estrin’s “victory”. And the students will just buy their copies of the papers somewhere else.
I had to laugh when I read this article on the BBC website. Note the graphic which explains it all! Is that all cleared up for you now?
Let’s be honest. If that graphic really does explain something to you, you really haven’t got a clue what the story is all about, have you?
On a more serious note, though, the USA has really given itself a black eye over this. In the latest revelations, it created a spoof Facebook server which could deliver malware in order to increase its spying capabilities. This is on top of previous revelations that they had hidden access to Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple servers (amongst others). And all this was on top of the tapping of Angela Merkel’s phone.
Going back to the original link, though, you can’t help wonder if you’re missing something when the founder of a company which spies like all get out on its users comes over all sanctimonious when someone spies on him or his organisation.
I’m getting a lot of hits on this subject. However, I would imagine that most people have found my previous comments on road works in Ruddington from 2012 and 2013.
For a month or two now there have been the usual gleeful signs placed all around Ruddington warning of impending road closures “during March and April”. I’m sure you all know that it is standard practice to stretch out a few days of work into months nowadays. This particular case is no exception.
Be warned that during the work, the A60 and A52 southbound (not to mention West Bridgford and smaller side roads) will be much busier than usual as people are redirected away from Ruddington, and which for large periods will be completely blocked from what I can gather.
Nottinghamshire County Council is involved and they have clearly liaised closely with the City Council in order that whatever it is they’re doing will have the maximum negative impact on the motorist, dovetailing neatly with the tram works in Clifton and Wilford, the gas main work in Clifton, the replacement of lighting in Clifton, and the widening of the A453 past Clifton.
The County Council’s website lists all the road closures. Naturally, this is no “at-a-glance” list, since to properly understand what is closed and when you have to open up one of 18 – count ‘em: eighteen – PDF files. Even then, instead of just saying that the road will be closed from x until y, they insist on using stupid language which confuses the issue.
As far as I can tell, this is what we will have to put up with:
29-31 March – High Street closed between the Bricklayer’s Arms and the pedestrian crossing near to Clifton Road. Church lane from the chip shop up to the Co-op closed. Easthorpe Street closed up to Peartree Orchard. You may be able to park, but you won’t be able to get through*
1 April – same as above, but High Street closure extends right up to the pedestrian crossing near Clifton Road. Some restrictions eased, but with High Street still being blocked, no through route to Clifton*
2 April – same as above but works extending further up Easthorpe Street towards A60 junction. No through route to Clifton*
3-6 April – through route now open on High Street. Easthorpe Street closed all the way to A60
7-8 April – the whole of Church Street blocked. Charles Street blocked
9-11 April – same as above but with Parkyns Street now blocked as well
12-13 April – High Street closed again. Kirk Lane blocked. Charles Street blocked.
* There IS a rat run through the back streets, but since people will be using Ruddington Lane to get to Clifton, getting out of that might be a problem.
You can have a look at the PDFs yourself if you are trying to find where you can park, and where you can’t. I’m only interested in through routes and access, and that’s what I’ve reported here. Note that for at least part of the time the car park behind the Co-op will be shut, and the Medical Centre has already sent out warnings to patients advising that there will be no vehicular access to the surgery for about a week from 29 March.
It’s going to be chaos in the way only Nottingham’s City and County Councils can organise.
I stress again that all this is taking place at the same time as the tram works, gas main work, lighting replacements, and A453 widening. And don’t forget the permanent traffic jam going north on the ring road now that they have “improved” junctions up that end. Nottingham is now the absolute pits – thanks to the City and County Councils.
The DSA (soon to be known as the DVSA) has sent out an email announcing that from 7 April 2014, the date from which the new Standards Check will replace the original Check Test, a new grading structure will be in place for ADIs.
The current scoring system has grade 4 (satisfactory), grade 5 (good), and grade 6 (excellent). Grades 1-3 are below standard or “fails”. The new system will simply have three grades: grade A (good), grade B (satisfactory), and Fail.
In all the years I have been doing this job I honestly can’t remember having been asked once what my grade is. Even when the topic has arisen later on during lessons, no one has shown any real interest in the grades. The only person who DOES have in interest is me – in the early days I wanted to improve, and in the present I want to maintain my standards. My grade was a good way of monitoring that.
I don’t have any issues with the new grading system from a practical perspective. It won’t alter the way I do my job, or affect my earnings, and unless I suddenly start being a crap instructor the chances are I’ll just end up with an A (even a B wouldn’t matter, except to my ego). Politically, though, the change is pointless. No matter what the DSA/DVSA says, parents and learners don’t give a toss about grades, and combining the original grades 5 and 6 into a single grade A hardly helps instructors “promote themselves” in any useful way. All most learners are interested in initially is passing for the least cost, then – after many have been bitten by cheapos delivering poor instruction because they’ve cut their overheads to minimise the effect of cutting their prices – a damage limitation exercise with a decent instructor charging decent prices.
Mind you, it remains to be seen whether or not the new Standards Check actually fails more instructors than the previous system. The DSA/DVSA’s preoccupation with “sub-standard instruction” that it never actually attacks head-on might come to something then.
Recently, I’ve picked up a handful of pupils from other instructors, and given the number of hours they’ve had in lessons – bearing in mind that they have now had one or two sessions with me, and I’ve been able to assess their capabilities – their lack of progress towards the test is shocking. They’re far more able than their progress suggests.
One pupil commented that she’d had over 50 hours and “couldn’t understand the stickers” in her school car because they “didn’t line up” the way her instructor kept saying. I’ve written about these bloody stickers before. They don’t work.
And another immediately stalled my car because she’d been taught in a diesel and her jackass of an instructor had taught her not to use gas (presumably, just to save him a few tenths of a penny in imagined fuel costs). I’ve written about that before, too. It happens a lot. How can you call yourself a driving instructor if your pupils can’t drive in any car other than yours if they manage to scrape a pass?
A monkey could do this bloody job – and unfortunately, they often do. Even worse, they sometimes manage to do it for years, putting on a brilliant show for the periodic check test which doesn’t pick this sort of nonsense up.
Will the new Standards Check get these kind of people off the Register? I doubt it – but until it does, any grading system will remain meaningless.
The story has been picked up in certain corners of the media. This article says:
Becoming a driving instructor has become a popular way for people to boost their income in recent years, and the authority, formerly known as the DSA, is concerned that standards in tuition are slipping.
Although I agree with them, that isn’t what the DSA/DVSA is saying at all. It might be thinking it – but it isn’t saying it. The article also says:
Learner drivers are urged to check that their driving instructor is fully qualified, by looking for a green DVSA certificate, which should be displayed in their car’s windscreen. A pink certificate indicates that the instructor is a trainee who is gaining experience as part of the qualification process.
I can see where they are coming from, but they could have worded it better and less ambiguously. Although I never had a pink licence myself, the “pinkie” remains a common route to becoming a fully qualified ADI. It is wrong to denigrate it without some sort of clarification.
If someone is hiding their pink badge, or if they lie about their status, then you should definitely dump them and look elsewhere. However, people who are openly using the pink licence for its intended purpose (and who are not charging full lesson prices) should not be dismissed outright as potentially suitable instructors.
How often is the Standards Check carried out?
It’s supposed to be once in any 4-year period. However, if you get a poor result (i.e. if you fail a check) then you’ll be tested again much sooner than that.
The Standards Check was only introduced in April 2014, and it is too soon to say whether or not DVSA will adhere to this 4-year time period. With the old Check Test, if you believe what some people say, they weren’t tested for 6 or 7 years or more sometimes. Yet it was supposed to be done within similar time periods.
I get a lot of stuff from the various newsfeeds. About 90% of it is either completely irrelevant, or of non-UK origin (so not usually relevant). Of the non-UK stuff. most of it is North American, and if you break that down still further then you find that about a third is to do with banning texting while driving, a third is about politicians arguing that banning texting while driving would be “unconstitutional”, and the final third is either about surprise discoveries that texting when you’re driving is dangerous or research by Clown Colleges that claim there’s no proof that texting while you’re driving is dangerous.
I gave up reporting on these stories ages ago – initially because I couldn’t keep up, and subsequently because they’re all the same; basically a lot of crap. However, this one is such a good example of why they’re crap that I thought I’d mention it.
If you thought the UK was bad when it comes to spelling out the obvious to people who are too stupid to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, just be thankful we don’t have it as bad as the Americans do. You see, to anyone or anything with more intelligence than a small pebble, it is clear that your driving is highly likely to be seriously impaired if you try and send a text to someone while you’re behind the wheel or travelling in traffic or at speed. It’s at least as dangerous as, for example, going to sleep.
In short, texting while driving IS dangerous, and no amount of Clown College “research” or political waffle about banning it being “unconstitutional” is going to alter that.
So the link is funny in that the Americans see the need for a simulator to show people that effectively shutting your eyes while driving at 70mph in heavy traffic might be a bad thing. To be fair, you have to remember that the average American teenager can get behind the wheel no matter how incompetent they are at driving (sometimes, from as young as 14). All the same, it’s a monumental waste of money designing a machine that simply demonstrates the obvious.
Just in case you don’t believe me, take a look at this link which came in a couple of days after I wrote the stuff above. South Dakota has just passed a new law banning texting and driving. But if only it were that simple.
You see, this law has been the topic of fierce debate for several years. This year alone, the argument was between two competing bills, and centred on whether or not tickets could be issued for texting on its own, and whether cities would be allowed to pass and enforce their own laws. The stalemate was so pathetic that many cities went ahead and introduced their own bans. However, the new bill is very watered down – it is a petty offence warranting a mere $100 fine, and it cannot be enforced unless the driver was stopped for something else!
You need to read the rest of the story to understand the mess American law is in. Talk about complicated.
Then there was this one from Salt Lake City. Here, a bill only got passed by 41 votes to 28. In Utah, texting is already banned, but the law doesn’t say anything about surfing, tweeting, or watching TV footage, etc. In America, if something isn’t specifically illegal then it is absolutely legal. There are no grey areas.
As I say, the newsfeeds have many of these every day.
Not long ago I wrote about how an idiot cyclist had caused chaos on the M25 by riding his bicycle on there, and how that in spite of trying to give the police a lesson on the Highway Code, he had been let off with just words of caution. In fact, it would appear that he was one of those people who is a few olives short of a pizza – but not enough to warrant being locked up for his own safety. Incredibly, the severest warning was apparently issued to motorists that they should watch out for such people (see the following paragraph for an update to this).
Well, another recent story tells how a cyclist was stopped on the M3. He claimed he was following his satnav instructions. It appears that both he, and the other idiot from the earlier story, were given £50 on-the-spot fines. The previous story didn’t mention that.
The problem is that both of them are complete imbeciles, and should have been prosecuted further. Neither story makes clear whether the two men had driving licences or not, though if they did then they KNEW the rules regarding cycling on motorways. If they DID have driving licences, then both should have been endorsed with points and a much larger fine. Both should have been named and shamed.
The police are taking too soft a line with cyclists, who are a growing menace on the roads. Jeez, you can’t even get away from the prats on motorways now.
