An email bulletin from the DSA states that from 7 April 2014, candidates will no longer be able to take Theory Tests with foreign language voiceovers, or Practical Driving Tests using an interpreter. This action follows the consultation carried out earlier this year, the results of which can be read here.
Note that Special Needs candidates will still be able to take their Theory Tests with English or Welsh voiceovers, and hearing-impaired candidates will still be able to take the Theory Test in British Sign Language (BSL) and use a BSL interpreter on their Practical Test. Other candidates will still be able to take their tests in Welsh (though Lord knows why they should have to, except in order to make some sort of political statement).
I fully support this action. However, I don’t think we’ve heard the last of it just yet…
And I also predict a rush of people hurrying to take tests before the deadline, so anyone learning to drive should bear this in mind as it is possible waiting times will increase.
Can I use an interpreter on my Practical Test?
Yes, until 7 April 2014. After that time you will have to do the test in English or Welsh.
Can I do my Theory Test with a voiceover in my first language?
Yes, until 7 April 2014 – and assuming that your language is one of those supported. After that time you will have to do the test in English or Welsh.
The story reports that police in London – the Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department (IFED) – have made 27 arrests in connection. The article says:
Police say those most often targeted are young people who are normally forced to pay such large amounts for genuine insurance that they jump at the chance to get what appears a good deal.
Reading into that, one has to conclude that those arrested were guilty of just that. However, I’d be very surprised if there wasn’t another common denominator involved.
An American story from the newsfeeds has concluded that car crashes are a “leading threat” to pregnant drivers. My understanding is that their next major aim is to report on the fact that water is wet and fire is hot.
Being a mother on the go isn’t easy, or without risks. In fact, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of trauma to pregnant women. Plus, crashes during those nine months result in higher rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes such as preterm birth, stillbirth, and placental abruption, according to a new study by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
I love that word “preventative”. Because prevention – at the least in the obvious sense – is absolutely the last thing on their list of recommendations. In fact, the only thing they do seem interested in is stating the bleeding obvious.
The results found that 2.9 percent of pregnant drivers were involved in one or more crashes. After one crash there was an increased rate of adverse outcomes and a second crash saw that rate increase.
You can hear the collective sound of millions of people slapping their foreheads and going “Of course! How could we have been so stupid?” Or not, as the case may be.
It appears that not much is needed to impress the Americans, and concluding that you increase the risk of a problem if you’re pregnant each time you have a crash is obviously one of them. Of course, any sensible person would realise that it is a risk that cannot be eliminated unless you don’t drive in the first place.
The reason for my nostalgia is that I can remember the term “active transport” from when I used to do Biology both at school and at Uni (as a minor part of my Chemistry degree). It always frustrated me because it explained nothing – and I can’t recall anyone ever saying “no one knows” when I asked questions. Even the current Wikipedia entry is vague. Mind you, people still prevaricate over things today – probably more so than in the past – even when “I don’t know” is really what they should be saying.
In a nutshell, a learner driver in Huddersfield was on their driving test when they were involved in an accident at a roundabout. The story clearly points out that:
The other car failed to stop after the collision.
And yet it can’t resist saying:
A learner driver taking their driving test crashed into a roundabout on Bradford Road this morning.
You don’t need to be a genius to work out that the car which left the scene might – just might – have been in the wrong. You also don’t need to be a genius to see that the learner didn’t “crash into” the roundabout – that was where she came to rest (and only one wheel is on the roundabout anyway). The Huddersfield Daily Examiner clearly doesn’t run to employing journalists who are even partly capable of reporting or investigating a story properly. It also doesn’t seem to run to having higher primates among its readership. The one comment on the story reads:
Martin Steer
I assume her instructions were “straight across at the roundabout”.
I bet he is an absolute riot at the bottom of the pond, where he clearly lives most of the time. Frighteningly, he also appears to be a bus driver in the area. I wonder if his employers are aware of his flippant attitude?
Edit 10/10/2013: Actually, the vultures HAVE picked up on it now. There is an updated story in the Daily Mail, and it dates from 7th October – this blog article was written on 4th October, and drew on information suggesting the incident in question had occurred several days before that. Obviously, it took a while for the story to drain down into the sewers.
The particular branch of the sewer the story has reached seems to think it is funny, and so far two out of three respondents have made childish and highly questionable comments about the injuries sustained by the examiner involved. It never ceases to amaze me what passes as “fit and proper” in this industry.
This story from the newsfeeds is interesting. A Spanish judge has ruled that a driving school which charges men about 20% less than women for a driving course is not guilty of discrimination.
Apparently, the school argued that men take an average of five lessons less than women to learn to drive, so the cost of the course reflects that difference. Women are charged $1,159, whereas the men pay $907. The judge agreed, and is quoted:
…every single year, men displayed greater dexterity and better open road skills [than women drivers]
It’s an admirable display of logic – but I wouldn’t get too comfy if I were the school in question, especially if Brussels gets wind of it.
The local comedians who pass themselves off as councillors in Nottingham appear to have very short attention spans to go with their complete lack of any common sense whatsoever.
I have frequently mentioned on this blog that on top of the total waste of money that is the tram, and its multitude of long-term road closures, they are adding additional road closures for other purposes on a daily basis, making it impossible to get through from one side of the City to the other. Even when a route is open, there is tons more traffic using it because it can’t go via it’s usual alternative route, which will be blocked.
Well, these comedians are now in the process of introducing blanket 20mph speed limits across Nottingham. An “information leaflet” they sent out – given to me by a pupil – can be seen (and downloaded) by clicking the image on the left.
To start with, the fact that they say that they are “proposing” these changes is a complete joke. They’re already doing it. And they ARE going to do it, everywhere, no matter what you or me might think or say. They don’t give a damn about anyone’s opinion unless it fits in with the one they already have. That’s why they will glibly quote residents as having said that they “support lower speed limits”, and yet ignore any opposing views.
Get it into your thick skulls, Nottingham City Council:
20mph is TOO SLOW on many roads, and certainly on some of those you have included in your blanket!
Most of the data they keep quoting – when they do actually use any data – relate to the likelihood of death if hit by a car travelling at 20mph or 30mph. Yes, if you’re hit by a car travelling at 30mph you’re more likely to die than if you’re hit by one going 20mph. That’s why 20mph speed limits make perfect sense outside schools, where the likelihood of a poorly-raised or badly supervised child running out is greater.
However, putting a 20mph limit on roads like Haydn Road – shown below – is the height of stupidity. It is really just too dumb for words.
The problem for the driver is that on these larger roads – and especially long straight ones like Haydn Road – sticking to 20mph is difficult. Cars are simply not designed to go at that speed all the time, and it is easy to go over. That means the driver will be spending time looking at his or her speedometer, so the likelihood of an accident could increase – even if it isn’t a fatal one.
Another problem is other drivers. The vast majority do not observe 20mph zones as they would 30mph ones, so someone who is actually doing 20mph will get tailgated and overtaken often – and believe me, if I’m in a 20mph zone I can guarantee that 90% of other drivers WILL tailgate or overtake. It happens over in Aspley, and now it happens in Sherwood.
These drivers aren’t notching it up to 60 or 70 or anything once they pass you. They’ll continue to drive at less than 30mph – but they simply don’t stick to 20mph, and they get impatient if they’re behind anyone who does. And this, too, can increase the risk of an accident – not just the overtaking, but the frustration created.
My pupils almost always feel pressured by this. They say so in no uncertain terms, and it leads them to make mistakes, because they’re looking in the mirror instead of looking ahead. They will still feel pressured once they pass their tests – when I’m not there to use the dual controls. For God’s Sake, I feel pressured – and I’ve been driving over 30 years!
So that then raises the issue of enforcement. Enforcing these 20mph limits effectively will cost a fortune, and to finance that, more people will need to be caught. Applying the 10% + 2mph guideline means going over the limit and getting ticketed is much easier than it is in 30+ zones, and none of the borough councils are in any way averse to deliberately twisting the rules to make money. Last year, for example, I accidently typed “62” instead of “61” into a parking ticket machine in West Bridgford and got a PCN as a result. The scumbags wouldn’t accept my argument that the parasite in the uniform that was too big for him had seen me buy the ticket in the first place, and wouldn’t respond to my subsequent complaints.
THIS is what they will end up doing with these 20mph zones if they try to enforce them. They will screw motorists even more. And that’s only if it remains a civil matter (involving PCNs). If the police are dragged into it and Fixed Penalties are involved, peoples livelihoods could be at stake – just to massage the egos of a bunch of politically correct teenage bureaucrats with ideas above themselves.
Just staying with Haydn Road for a moment, it’s also worth pointing out that all the side roads joining it have got speed bumps on them, and are so narrow that you can’t do more than 20mph anyway (and people seldom do). Percival Road, shown below, is a prime example – they’re all like this, and the picture doesn’t do it justice as there are usually far more parked cars than that.
Yet the Council has already spent thousands erecting pointless signs on these roads – a cost above and beyond that of installing and maintaining the speed bumps over the years. And this is before their “consultation”, you understand. So we’ll just have to pretend that there is a cat in hell’s chance of them realising they’re wrong and taking the signs down.
What of the accident statistics for these areas which are destined to be smothered with 20mph blankets? Maybe once every few years someone will get knocked over – and that’s a worse case scenario – but that’s all. It’s not like there is carnage all year round, and along miles and miles of roads.
So what, then, of the propaganda being spewed by the City Council? In that brochure, they say:
The Wilford area… has a mixture of shops, schools, community centres and residential streets.
It’s a pointless statement that could be applied to any road in the UK. But it continues:
A 20mph limit can help to establish sensible sharing of the roads where people live and socialise and reflect the community and residential nature of the area.
Someone please pass me the sick bag! What are they suggesting? That people should walk around on roads regardless of traffic? They already do that in neighbourhoods where a single helix in their DNA is as high up the evolutionary ladder they get, and that’s where those bloody accidents I mentioned come from in the first place. It’s all wishy-washy bullshit, designed to appeal specifically, for example, to people whose brains have been turned to jelly because they’ve just had a baby and who “want to see safer roads” for when little Kylie or Jason grows up. It’s a little ironic, since Kylie or Jason will likely grow up either to be a statistic, or to make the statistics themselves – all because of the ineffectual way they’ve been brought up in the first place. And even more ironically, those very parents who want “safer roads” will be the worst offenders when they start taking little Kylie or Jason to school!
That the scheme is a foregone conclusion can be seen in the statement:
A formal, written consultation will take place in October 2013 where you can have your say on which roads should be included or excluded in this scheme.
Can you see that? Residents will be consulted over is which roads will be included – not whether or not the scheme itself should go ahead at all. Nottingham City Council have no intention of backing down on this, no matter what anyone says. All they want is to be able to sift the responses for the ones they like the sound of, and to oppose or smear those they don’t.
Is there any conclusive evidence that 20mph limits actually work? Well, no. However, most councils across the UK are introducing these 20mph limits, and their supporting evidence is based wholly on the circular argument that it must work because everyone else is doing it. Nottingham City Council is no exception – it’s only evidence for 20mph being beneficial appears to be that Newcastle has done it. And somehow, Newcastle has come to the startling conclusion that accidents have fallen between 20% and 60% in streets where 20mph has been imposed. No mention of the type of road, or the times of day – just this idiotic blanket statement that the fools at Nottingham’s City Council can pounce on without having the slightest clue if it’s true or not, or why.
If it were true, then 20mph limits should be introduced – and it would be hard to argue. But the Newcastle scheme only started in 2008, and even then it only reached full blanket level at the end of 2011. Accident statistics are notoriously complex, and no one – anywhere – understands them fully. So there is no way that a mere 18 months of data can be used to definitely prove that 20mph limits result in massive reductions in accidents. I would lay odds that some of the roads in Newcastle which haven’t been restricted have also seen reductions in accidents. That’s what happens – the numbers go up and down all by themselves, and cannot be attributed to single events like the introduction of lower limits, and it is misleading and unprofessional to attempt to do so.
And then, what of the places Nottingham City Council is targeting? If you look at the RoSPA site on this topic, it says of 20mph limited areas:
20mph limits are most appropriate for roads where average speeds are already low, and the guidance suggests below 24mph. The layout and use of the road must also give the clear impression that a 20mph speed or below is the most appropriate.
The Department for Transport (DfT) also advises 20mph limits on roads where the average speed is already less than 24mph. The decision by the Council to apply a 20mph limit to Haydn Road is clearly in breach of this. Haydn’s original speed limit was 30mph, and the layout (width) most certainly did not make it a “low average speed” road. Absolutely nothing, therefore, can justify applying a 20mph limit to it, and Nottingham City Council has just steamrollered over the very guidance it quotes in support of its draconian behaviour. The situation it has created is therefore potentially much more dangerous.
Another council doing this is Bristol. Interestingly, the police comment:
We do not oppose the introduction of 20mph schemes but encourage all to look at other ways that we can promote reducing speed limits effectively.
As with any other speed limit, 20mph zones will be treated in the same way in that enforcement will not be routine but intelligence led. Where there is evidence of excessive speed, we will take action where appropriate.
That first sentence is very telling. You see, from what I can gather, Nottingham City Council IS going to be trying to enforce these limits – and especially on Haydn Road! And yet I cannot see how they’re going to manage to get the police to do it, which means it will remain a civil matter. Quite frankly, I don’t think they know how they (the Council) are going to enforce it.
Sometimes, people don’t do themselves any favours. I just saw this in the news feeds, and I had to check the date to make sure it wasn’t April 1st.
For those who don’t know, there has been a big kerfuffle in Saudi Arabia over a ban on women driving. Unfortunately – for SA, anyway – the women over there have not taken to this edict very well and there are all kinds of protests and deliberate flauntings of the ban taking place. So, in a desperate attempt to try and “win” the argument that would make any 5-year old involved in a schoolyard argument proud, Sheikh Salah al-Luhaydan has come out with the following:
…[driving] could have a reverse physiological impact. Physiological science and functional medicine studied this side [and found] that it automatically affects ovaries and rolls up the pelvis. This is why we find for women who continuously drive cars their children are born with clinical disorders of varying degrees…
What a plonker! And he is allegedly “a psychologist”, which says a hell of a lot about that branch of study if he can come out with nonsense like this. It’s straight out of the Middle Ages.
Why do religious groups do this to themselves? They must really believe what they write – in spite of the whole weight of science and factual information which proves them wrong – otherwise they wouldn’t do it. It’s frightening, and no wonder some of the things happening in the world these days do happen.
I had a pupil on test this morning, and as I was travelling to pick her up I hit traffic. At 9.30am, it was far heavier than usual, and I quickly realised something other than the idiot tram works were involved. And so it was.
Severn Trent were in their absolute element. Big hole in the road, barriers, temporary traffic lights, and people standing around apparently doing sod all.
There had been what appears to have been a major leak on one of the only roads into Nottingham still unaffected by tram works, ring road improvements, gas main replacement, or the building of “quality developments of affordable 2- and 3-bedroomed housing” on green belt land. The temporary lights were still up this afternoon around 3pm, so try to avoid that end for a day or two (and especially during evening rush hour, which is bad enough down that road anyway). I can’t see Severn Trent finishing this off any quicker than usual. (Edit: the lights were finally removed late – very late – on Sunday)
It would be unfair to blame Severn Trent completely. After all, they’re just doing what they usually do, as well as they usually do it! The real culprits are those in the Council who have restricted so many roads because of the tram, or who have rushed into “improvements” within five minutes of the grant cheque being cleared without waiting for the tram works to finish.
And don’t forget it is the bloody Marathon on Sunday. That already involves closing off even more roads (and I bet the ring road at Aspley Lane is down to one lane at the same time – the berks won’t pass up a chance to rub salt into the motorists’ wounds like that). (Edit: They actually went one better. The only road through Clifton – the roundabout at Farnborough Road/Green Lane – has now got 4-way (count ’em: FOUR way) traffic lights on it. They appear to have sanctioned tram works there before any of the other routes have re-opened).
This story somehow managed to spam the newsfeeds, coming in numerous times. The title of the piece laughingly trumpets that the source is an “expert instructor”.
To start with, there is no such thing as an “expert instructor”, and those claiming to be such are guaranteed to be much further away from the imagined finishing line than they believe they are. In this case, our erstwhile “expert” is merely the chairman of the local chapter of the Driving Instructors’ Association (DIA). But let’s take a look at what the story says – it’s from those irritating This Is… local news websites who throw stories together using a food blender.
The crux of the story is that this “expert” reckons “newly qualified drivers must be kept from fast roads until they get enough experience under their belts.”
Let’s just clarify again for our “expert” the true statistics. The vast majority of accidents involving “new” drivers tick the following boxes:
driver aged 24 or under
car full of mates
at night
on rural roads
on a bend
no other car involved
Reading between the lines, you have lack of experience sitting on one side of the scales, and the belief that they know it all on the other – and the scales are heavily tipped to the latter position. Reading further into it, you also have the deplorable underlying attitude of many typical sub-24-year olds.
Our “expert” appears to be campaigning for learners to be allowed on motorways. I agree with that, but for totally different reasons. How does he think this is going to be applied to all learners? A huge number live nowhere near a motorway and couldn’t possibly do lessons on one (at best, they might get on one once for a few miles). But he is quoted:
It’s not necessarily that young people are speeding, it’s that they may be going too fast for the road circumstances.
Quite. And they do that on rural or town roads – not on motorways, where bends are gentle and general visibility of the road ahead is usually good. That’s why those statistics about accidents I gave above are so significant. What’s more, the article is in This Is Gloucestershire – a county known for the number of rural roads within in – and is part of a campaign being run by that news source commemorating the number of young drivers killed on Gloucestershire’s roads.
So the unworkable solution being suggested would have to involve keeping all new drivers off all except non-NSL (National Speed Limit) A roads.
On the other hand, of course, Gloucestershire’s appalling young driver accident record could just have something more to do with the number of rural roads it has, and the attitudes of many of its drivers. And not the fact that they haven’t been taken on motorways when they’re taking driving lessons.
voiceovers, or Practical Driving Tests using an interpreter. This action follows the consultation carried out earlier this year, the results of which can be read here.
instructor”.