Category - News

What The Hell Is An EU No Entry Sign?

This article from the newsfeeds tells how drivers in Rochdale are ignoring a No Entry sign. It’s a local story, and no big deal otherwise.

However, the part that really confuses me is this:

A police spokesman said: “Some drivers may be confused, as this is a European Union standard sign and not the usual ‘red circle with white bar’ No Entry we all know from the Highway Code.

“However, ignorance of the law is still no excuse, the signage is legal and enforceable…”

Various questions spring to mind. Like, why are signs which aren’t in the Highway Code being used? And, what the hell IS an EU No Entry sign? Or, how can it be enforceable if no one knows what it means due to the absence of any British instructions on how to use it?

No Entry Sign - It's all in the style, apparently

The simple fact is that a No Entry sign is a No Entry sign. The only differences will be in the size and associated wording, and Rochdale police are not just barking up the wrong tree – they’re in the wrong bloody forest!.

If you look it up, the No Entry sign we all know is actually standard across the world (well, most of it). Wikipedia explains:

The abstract ‘No Entry’ sign was officially adopted to standardization at the League of Nations convention in Geneva in 1931. The sign was adapted from Swiss usage. The Swiss, in turn, adopted the practice of former European states that marked their boundaries with their formal shields and, when not wishing visitors to enter, would indicate so by tying a blood-red ribbon horizontally around the shield.[citation needed] The sign is also known as C1, from its definition in the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals.

The European ‘No Entry’ sign was adopted into North American uniform signage in the 1970s, replacing its rectangular, white “Do Not Enter” sign, although the U.S. version retains the wording “Do Not Enter” where the European and Canadian version typically has no wording on it.

So, it would appear that Rochdale’s police are making this far more complicated than it really is due to their own lack of understanding. If whatever sign is being used there doesn’t consist of a red circle with a white bar in the middle, then surely it is not a valid sign after all, and motorists would have a sound argument if they challenged any charges against them.

Unfortunately, Rochdale Online doesn’t appear to run to being able to afford a photographer, so the offending motorists and signs cannot be seen.

It would appear that the correct signs are going to be installed shortly. I wonder what idiot put the wrong ones in – if, indeed, they’re actually wrong at all?

Free Driving School. Is It Really A Viable Business Model?

UPDATED

When I first saw this I thought it was from America, then I thought is was April Fools’ Day – but it really is genuine.

The story reports that a company has launched a “free driving school”. It goes without saying that if there really were schools offering genuinely free driving courses and running successful businesses out of it then the rest of us would go bankrupt overnight. But I’m not going to lose any sleep over it, and nor should you.

Teaching people to drive for free is not a business model. In reality, someone somewhere has got to bankroll the free lessons. This applies to any “free” service or product. Bearing that in mind, the fog clears a little when you discover that the company who’s doing this, Stoneacre Motor Group, is a new & used car dealership.

The story says that Stoneacre had a problem with its apprentices not being able to drive. Since apprentices tend to be very young, very skint, and highly unlikely to have started driving lessons by themselves, and since Stoneacre needed them to be able to transport vehicles between branches, they decide to get around this by introducing their own in-house driver training. Up to this point, it’s a great idea.

However, due to the “success” of the scheme, it then came up with the idea of extending it “to the public”.

In actual fact, this statement is somewhat misleading, because when they say “the public” they mean “anyone who buys a car from us”. The story (and Stoneacre’s website) makes that quite clear. The website also says that there’s “no catch” – well, since they are up front about you having to buy a car from them first, that statement does appear to be otherwise true. They claim on their website that the number of lessons provided is “unlimited”:

The scheme allows you to take as many free lessons as you need in preperation (sic) for your driving test and could potentially save you £100’s of pounds in fees.

This rather strange wording, and quite reserved. If lessons were really “unlimited”, you’d expect it to definitely save many hundreds – and possibly thousands – of pounds so you’d be shouting that from the rooftops. The website also says:

In order to take advantage of the Stoneacre driving school you either have to buy a car from the group or recommend a family member or friend who goes on to buy a car.

Again, this is odd wording. It seems to preclude anyone from buying a car and then just giving the free lessons to someone else (like a son or daughter). The person who gets the free lessons appears to be required to organise the entire transaction in advance, and I can’t see too many parents listening to their 17-year old for advice on where to buy the next family car, or choosing one dealer over another purely on the basis that they give free driving lessons from them. But I guess that Stoneacre is relying on the likelihood that the offer will attract enough attention to sell a few extra cars.

Anybody who has ever looked into buying a new car will have encountered the enormous and confusing range both of models and prices quoted for the same model across different dealerships. In just one example resulting from a quick Google search, prices for the Corsa Ecoflex S model range between £7,990 and the list price of  £11,570 (a whopping 30% range). Even the dealer with the lowest price will still be making a huge profit (when was the last time you saw a car dealer driving around in a banged up Micra?). So with a 30% price range to play with, who would ever know if you slapped a monkey on the price to cover a course of “free” driving lessons? Alternatively, of course, you could simply take the hit of the “unlimited” number of free lessons right in your profits, but let’s be realistic about this…

Used car prices present an even more fertile area for creative pricing. At least with a new car you do have the list price as distant baseline to refer to. With used cars there is nothing. Even where attempts are made to provide guide prices the interpretation over what constitutes “good”, “poor”, or indifferent in terms of the condition of the vehicle is will be subjective. And a bit of chromed plastic stuck on the back, turning a basic model into a “ghia” or something with an “i” in it, can add hundreds. Hiding £500 within used car prices would be easier still.

And then there’s the “package” you get. In the 80s I bought a used Ford Cortina Mk IV from a dealer. It looked immaculate on the forecourt, and came with “free servicing and repairs* for 12 months”. The most important part of that phrase turned out to be the “*”, which roughly translates as “unless you need anything doing to it, and excluding certain things such as labour, brakes, and clutch, and all the other stuff you’ll most likely need”. It meant that I was liable for significant labour costs at the service if it needed anything doing to it (a huge part of any repair bill) and the whole of the brakes bill (things that wore out naturally were excluded from the “free” service). And although that car looked immaculate on the forecourt, after a few weeks it became clear that it had had a substantial paint job carried out on it to conceal corrosion. By the time I got rid of it some years later it was a rust bucket, and I spent a lot of time and money patching it up while I owned it.

That “free package” was part of the dealer’s justification for the price I paid, and that was probably around £500-£1,000 more than I’d have paid for the same car from a private seller. But since I had to buy it on finance, buying privately wasn’t an option – something that applies to many car buyers today. The dealers know this, which is why they offer attractive “packages” in the first place. Things are no different now – dealers do not give things away. They just word their offers to make it look like they do.

Another version of the story quotes the company MD:

As far as we’re aware the scheme is a first for the motor industry and our initial trial has been a huge success with the demand for free driving lessons heavily outweighing capacity and far exceeding our initial expectations.

This is misleading unless you take it in context with what they have to offer at the moment. At the time of writing they only have two instructors – one covering Doncaster, the other Peterborough – and it doesn’t take much to “outweigh capacity” in one instructor’s diary, particularly if he or she is salaried (Stoneacre implies that theirs are) and not working weekends or late evenings.

I don’t begrudge Stoneacre trying to sell more cars using this scheme – good luck to them – but I think they will run into serious problems somewhere along the line. The first issue to catch up with them is likely to be that word “unlimited”. As long as their pupils are passing their tests after 30 hours or less then the necessary costs will be easily soaked up and everyone will be happy – but pick up a few people who have difficulties and start running into 40, 50, or more hours, and bells will start ringing in the finance department. Moreover, if one of those learners appears who you know absolutely should not be driving, and who is going to end up taking lots of lessons and lots of tests, is Stoneacre going to stick with them? And if it does, should it? Also, has Stoneacre considered that as time goes by you tend to collect a sizeable group of slower learners, and there will be periods when most of your capacity is taken by these?

Another issue is the value of the lessons relative to the purchase made. I had a pupil pass his test recently who is planning to get a car in the next few weeks. When I asked him how much he was planning to spend he replied “under £1,000”, and he is far from being untypical of decent 17-year old drivers. The lower the value of the car, the harder it is to conceal “free lessons” in its price – try it, and the price immediately goes outside of the range the buyer is interested in. OK, you might entice a few to spend a little more than they intended – and maybe that’s what is being counted on here – but it will simply result in hugely overpriced cars which, in time, will pull overall sales down.

Remember that there is no such thing as a “free lesson”. If the pupil doesn’t pay for it, the instructor has to. And driving around using up fuel just increases the amount of money the instructor loses – which is why the “free” lessons from certain pseudo-national driving schools always involve an hour sitting in a car park talking. The margins on driving lessons are already small, leaving no wiggle room for creative pricing. Stoneacre has effectively forced itself to either cut profits or increase prices – and that second option is likely to lead to reduced sales, which then cuts profits anyway.

If I didn’t know better, I’d say Stoneacre’s finances were being run by one of those cheapo driving instructors who are trying to commit business suicide with a business model like this.


It seems that the offer of free lessons isn’t as all-encompassing as was originally implied. This article says that the only people eligible are those buying a 63-plate car (i.e. a brand new one). So unless the lessons are freely transferrable, the people who would most benefit probably won’t.

More FOI Driving Test Rubbish

I’ve mentioned in various article recently about FOI requests, and how they are able to bring the average hack at local newspapers to orgasm in five seconds flat.

This one is quite amusing, because it is particularly inept in its attempts to interpret statistics. The headline trumpets that Blackburn is the hardest place in Lancashire to take your driving test. It then goes on to cite a pass rate of 47.7% compared to the average of 51.5% across the county (Lancashire).

That is statistical noise, and is meaningless. It’s even inside the 5% variance that the DSA uses to make sure its examiners are doing their jobs properly. But that doesn’t stop a driving instructor from saying:

Some other areas are definitely a lot easier, but I think it’s a very good thing to drive here. If you can drive in Blackburn you can drive anywhere.

Someone else who doesn’t realise that a 4% difference is meaningless, or that 47% and 51% do  not constitute “easy” and “hard”.

McDonalds Drive-thru Abused Once More

McDonalds has a clear policy regarding use of its drive-thru facilities. That page was last updated in March 2011, and it runs as follows (appalling grammar in the question left uncorrected):

What are the policies for service in the drive thru lanes?

Q: i have a serious question for you what is the polices for your drive thru i was refused service because i came thru on a bicycle in the drive thru and there is nothing stating that bicycle are allowed and will be refused service i would like to know why that is because i am seriously offended

A: Thanks for your question. McDonald’s drive thru is for people in motor vehicles only, bicycles are not permitted on our drive thru due to the health and safety policies we have in place.

Now, I mentioned a few weeks ago how some idiot attempted to go through one on horseback. She was so deranged that she forced her daughter to drag McDonalds Logoher horse into the restaurant, whereupon it crapped on the floor – probably as a result of being frightened – while people were eating. Well, this story tells how some idiot on a bicycle tried the same trick and was similarly refused service.

Of course, being in The Mail, it is obviously McDonalds who are in the wrong.

The idiot in question this time was one of those clowns who rides around with a baby-buggy trailer on his bike. In this particular case, he had his 4-year old son in the damned thing. I wonder what publicity he’d now be seeking if he’d have been hit by a motorist who didn’t see the bloody thing sticking out behind?

The funny thing is that the prat waited in the queue of cars for 15 minutes before reaching the window. He’d have gotten served in less than five minutes if he’d have simply gone inside. He displays the sort of logic common to cyclists:

I was baffled. If my bike is safe enough for the road, surely it is safe enough for a drive-thru in a car park with a 5mph limit? It’s a daft policy.

I’ll wager that it doesn’t take much to baffle him under normal circumstances if he finds this one confusing.

The Mail has got plenty of pictures of him at the drive-thru – all set up for the occasion, of course. And they quote a Health & Safety Executive (HSE) spokesman:

[he] said there was no legislation preventing cyclists from using a drive-thru.

‘McDonald’s should state the real reason for turning away cyclists rather than using health and safety as a catch-all…”

McDonalds has not said that there WAS legislation, nor have they used it as a “catch-all”. They make it clear that it is THEIR policy on health & safety grounds. See the difference? You have “Health & Safety” with capitals, and “health & safety” in lower case – one is a pile of idiotic bureaucracy, and the other an attempt to apply common sense whilst still being bound by idiotic rules from the other. See if you can work out which one’s which. I also wonder if that HSE clown would have argued the same about the silly cow on the horse?

And in any case, if a cyclist WAS to be injured at a drive-thru, the HSE would be all over McDonalds like a rash. And by that, I mean a sudden and really nasty rash – not the lingering, long-term rash that the HSE is to businesses the rest of the time.

It appears that McDonalds has got a real problem with people of restricted intelligence trying to use the drive-thrus. The Mail’s story mentions how last month it turned away a 76-year old on a mobility scooter from a branch. McDonald’s apparently apologised – but they shouldn’t have.

RED Driving School Is At It Again!

Not long ago, I wrote an article after RED Driving School had “released research” that revealed the startling fact that young drivers think they’re better drivers than their parents. RED’s CEO said:

“It’s good to see that young drivers are confident in their driving ability and believe that, because they’re going through or have recently been through the driving tuition and test procedure, they’re better placed to drive safely and competently.”

So this new story makes interesting reading – not least because it has appeared on every PR site imaginable, suggesting that the most important detail to someone somewhere concerns the use of “RED” in the title. Again, something as simple as playing around with a spread sheet and a data set that is in the public domain is touted as “research”.

The reports are misleading because although they refer to the 17-24 year age group, it isn’t clear if the data given refer to this group alone, or if they are for all motorists. Similarly, look at the table below – it apparently shows “accident hotspots”:

The statistics in the press release

I would just love someone to explain to me the Westminster entry. Apart from the question about why it is there at all, how the hell does it manage to get above Manchester except based on the lesser category of “number of road accidents”? Sure, this category is significant – but not in the context of the RED press release. For a location to have such a high number of accidents, but to buck the trend and have such small numbers of serious/fatal incidents, is completely overlooked in the “research”. One way or another the Westminster data are both highly significant and highly suspect, which automatically casts doubt on all the other data..

But RED’s CEO chimes in with:

Many young people are seriously hurt or killed on our roads every year and it is self evident that reducing this carnage needs to be a key objective for both Government and the driver training industry.

Research has shown that the majority of casualties in the UK are on urban roads. In 2010, a total of 98,550 casualties occurred on urban roads, with 6,500 on motorways.

Apart from stating the bleeding obvious, at no point does he explain HOW the driver training industry – or the Government, for that matter – is actually going to deal with it. The press release itself deals primarily with nonsense issues about how Manchester has made “the biggest improvement” without identifying precisely how; and how Birmingham is the “most dangerous urban area foo young drivers” without stating why. Surely, if Manchester had managed to identify, isolate, and bottle Miracle Ingredient Z-247 (read Catch-22 if you don’t know what that is) then everyone would be buying it by the truckload. Councillor Nigel Murphy (from Manchester) tries to explain:

Over the last few years we have set up dozens of 20mph zones across Manchester and we have now revealed plans to make the city’s roads even safer. This includes the introduction of Dutch-style cycle paths and bus priority lanes on major routes into the city centre.

This is complete, misinformed, political rubbish. Not one word of that in any way explains why Manchester has fallen from 1st to 10th in the rankings – it is just designed to milk to fact without understanding it. On that idiotic comment about cycle paths, any possible benefit will be completely smothered by the huge increase in the numbers of cyclists since last year – you simply cannot evaluate a change in one variable when lots of others are changing at the same time. Manchester’s “victory” results from comparing 2005 with 2011. A lot happened 9 years ago – and in the intervening 6 years – most of which had nothing to do with the current nonsense Nigel Murphy is rattling on about. And the effects of the Olympics and Tour de France (both in 2012 and 2013) have yet to be seen. This story certainly casts a lot of doubt on Manchester’s ability to stay at the bottom of the rankings once new data become available (43 accidents on just two roads over a period of about 18 months)..

The simple fact is that although Manchester may have seen a 40% reduction in its casualty rate between 2005 and 2011, we’re still talking about similar orders of magnitude in every city. Manchester’s figures just aren’t as appallingly bad as they were, that’s all.

The article also quotes RED (it doesn’t say who, but probably the CEO again):

…RED is offering enhanced lesson plans to help learner drivers not just to pass their driving test but also to be safer drivers during that critical newly-qualified phase.

This, too, is complete rubbish. All driving instructors are self-employed and no driving school can guarantee that they will all be performing to the same standard. I pick up lots of pupils who have taken lessons with other instructors – independents, local schools, and national ones (RED included) – who have certainly not experienced the “enhanced” lessons RED’s CEO is talking about. “Safe Driving For Life” is the DSA’s strapline, and ALL driving instructors should be teaching in accordance with that. If some aren’t, then unless the driving school whose name they operate under is very selective in who they take on (and most simply require a Green Badge and signs of life) they will be distributed across the entire spectrum.

If you’re still in doubt, another PR story came in at the same time – again involving RED. It refers to a deal between RED and an insurance company whereby:

…a 5% discount [is given] to all new drivers who have had 10 or more hours of professional tuition with RED Driving School. For the average 17 year-old customer, this represents a saving of around £100 on their annual premium.

This raises a huge number of questions of an ethical nature. To start with, 10 hours of lessons is not going to change how someone drives – even if the instructors were recruited straight from Mount Olympus and are fed on an exclusive diet of Ambrosia, with the threat of transfer to Hades should any of their pupils ever be involved in an accident. So is it right to offer insurance based on this?

But you also have to ask how much the average new driver is being ripped off by in the first place, when meeting such a simplistic goal is going to get you a £100 discount from a named insurer? In any case, in my experience those offering discounts are usually charging more than the rest in the first place, so there really is no discount that couldn’t be obtained by shopping around.

But the biggest question has to be how RED can make all those statements about “reducing this carnage” when it has signed a deal with an insurance company to offer cheaper insurance to drivers if they simply take a few lessons with it. It hardly seems to be a positive move towards road safety, and rather more focused on marketing.

Oh, yeah. And RED’s “research” isn’t research. Nor are current accident statistics going to be influenced (i.e. reduced) by driving instructors.

More Bad Pass Rates – But You Have To Read This To Believe It!

You often hear ADIs going on about only teaching people the bare minimum of skills required to pass the driving test instead of teaching them how to drive properly. The DSA’s strapline is “Safe Driving for Life”. So it beggars belief when you see a story like this.

Greater Manchester - with Failsworth and Hyde highlightedOn the surface, it’s just another FOI request blown out of proportion by some local hacks. But the really frightening part is the case studies they’ve dug up.

The article reports that Failsworth test centre has the lowest pass rate in Manchester, at 39.2% (bolstered by a really funny (not) reference to the name). It points out that Hyde test centre is 16% higher than this, at about 55%. As I mentioned recently, no one is ever prepared to refer to the population demographics in the areas they are comparing. Failsworth (marked as “A” on the map), being much closer to the centre of Manchester (and virtually part of Oldham), has a much higher proportion of non-UK national citizens. Hyde (marked as “B”) is out in the sticks, even though it is still part of Greater Manchester. Indeed, it is only about 6 miles from Glossop – which is so rural not everyone has electricity there yet!  The article also says that Buxton – 25 miles out into the countryside – has a pass rate of 61.4%. Obviously, higher pass rates are the story editors’ only focus – but it does illustrate my point.

But here’s the best part. They give several examples. Firstly, someone called Kate Emmott failed at Failsworth, and is now planning on taking her test at an “easier” test centre. She says that she got a “major” fault (marked as “serious” on the test sheet) for not driving in a bus lane. She says:

It was coming up to 10am and I was worried about it. I think I had a really strict tester to be honest.

If Manchester’s bus lanes are anything like the ones around here, their morning hours of operation are 7.30-9.30. Being “nearly” 10am is not the same as 9.30am, and failing to realise this is not the result of a “strict” examiner. It’s the result of being a bad driver.

Then there is the case of Emily Bleackley, who failed her test four times in Failsworth, and then passed “weeks later” in Hyde. The report says:

…her second fail last December was for ‘getting lost’, while her third attempt was scuppered when she slowed down to let a car pass. Her fourth attempt was down to bad ‘filtering’ with other traffic, she says.

So here’s someone else who cannot equate bad driving with failing your test. You don’t fail for “getting lost” – unless you get lost and then make bad mistakes. Slowing down to let people pass – probably on a busy road, since we’re talking almost the centre of Manchester – is dangerous and the sign of a frightened rabbit! And “bad filtering” almost certainly means not being aware of what others are doing, and changing lanes without proper safety checks. In spite of this, Ms Bleackley says:

…[my] instructor could not understand [my] fails either… She said she couldn’t believe I’d failed because my driving was completely up to standard. I was in tears after my tests at Failsworth.

I’m sorry, Emily, but you listed at least three good reasons why your fails were totally justified, and it is shocking that your instructor thought you were “up to standard” if you were so obviously unable to cope with other traffic. You weren’t up to standard – that’s why you failed, and for reasons which are absolutely clear. And it is worrying that you subsequently passed at a test centre where you’re shortcomings perhaps weren’t challenged. Are you going to drive exactly the way you did on those failed tests now you’ve got your licence? Like not driving in bus lanes, slowing to a crawl when you get scared, and weaving from lane to lane without checking first?

The DSA is quoted as saying:

Pass rates can be influenced by various factors. Some people may take more lessons and be better prepared for the test. Statistical factors can also play a part as the number of tests conducted at different test centres varies significantly.

However, every driving test is conducted to the same strict requirements. We train examiners to a high standard and closely monitor their work to ensure that all tests are assessed consistently across the country.

But nothing can hide the fact that some test centres – and their routes – are inevitably going to be easier, and this is always going to result in some people passing their tests when they have underlying issues with their driving. Although it isn’t the DSA’s fault, the two examples above provide clear evidence that two very substandard new drivers have been put on the roads by the system – and it is therefore the system which is at fault. Unfortunately, the system is too complex to be able to reliably identify every single variable involved, and it is left to people like Ms Bleackley and her driving instructor to open their mouths and provide the necessary pointers to where some of the faults with it might lie.

Another news story adds weight to this, and I’ll put an article about that together shortly.

A New Accident Scam

Spurred on by the accident claims vultures who call you within 24 hours of any notifiable traffic accident, it would appear that there is an increasing number of deliberate accidents involving flashing headlights to tell you to pull out, then having someone drive into you.

Flashing headlights is only supposed to be used as a warning, but as everyone knows it is used well outside of that remit. The Highway Code says:

110

Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.

111

Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully.

The problem is that if someone flashes you to emerge in busy traffic, and if you can see that they’ve stopped, and if you can see that it is otherwise safe to emerge, then there is every reason for you to do so. If they are scammers and decide to drive into you, they could just as easily have done it if they hadn’t have flashed and had just sat there obviously inviting you to pull out. The flashing headlights thing is a red herring.

I make it clear to my pupils how they should both use and interpret flashing headlights. There’s no point saying “don’t do it. EVER”, because they will once they’ve passed, so it is important they understand how to do it properly.

Is Honest John Giving Potentially Illegal Advice?

This short article came through on the newsfeeds. It’s in The Telegraph, and it centres around a question posed by a reader who says that their 81-year old mother wants to return to driving after a minor stroke. The reader asks about refresher training for older people.

Honest John – The Telegraph’s “expert” – replies:

The Institute of Advanced Motorists can help with this ([website link]) and so can RoSPA. But your county council may offer this kind of course. Many do. Take a look at its website.

Any driving instructor can do this – and legally. I’ve signed off letters for such assessments myself. Unless IAM and RoSPA can guarantee that the assessment is carried out by a registered instructor, anyone else who is a member of those organisations would be breaking the Law if they charged for any such assessment. Let’s face facts: these people will not be giving such training away for free. Even “your county council” will be paying someone somewhere to do the assessment, and if they’re using IAM or RoSPA they’d better make sure that qualified and registered ADIs are being employed.

IAM and RoSPA might well be able to put people in touch with suitable ADIs, but whether that’s what they would do is another matter. On top of that, IAM and RoSPA membership does not automatically mean that someone is an expert at medical driving assessments. The majority of members of groups like these are simply anoraks who see a vastly enlarged image of themselves when they look in a mirror. These groups regulate and audit themselves, unlike  ADIs who are regulated and monitored by the DSA. ADIs are licensed to take payment for their services, whereas IAM and RoSPA members are not.

At the very least, Honest John is in error for not mentioning driving instructors alongside IAM and RoSPA. His advice is potentially very misleading without much more detailed qualification.

Instructors Blame Insurers For Falling Test Bookings

You can’t help sense a certain irony in this report, in which “instructors” claim that the falling numbers of people taking driving tests is the fault of insurers. The driving school making the claims is one which specialises in giving lessons to 11-17 year olds. Just for the record, it charges £60 per hour – the typical cost of a lesson for adults is only £20-£25 an hour.

In an expanded story on the same topic, a mother is currently paying these inflated rates for her 12-year old on the basis that “she’s certain costs will rise by the time he’s 18”. I bloody well hope she’s right – I’d love to be able to charge £60 an hour. But there is no way that will happen, so you almost feel sorry for her for being so stupid! She doesn’t know what she’s letting herself in for by encouraging her child – because that’s what he is – to drive, when it will be another 6 years before he can do so legally. And whatever the costs of running a car in 2019, he’ll still have to pay them – so the costs she has in mind can only be those associated with learning to drive! Silly woman.

The irony comes at you on several fronts, as well. Apart from charging almost three times as much as normal instructors to teach children to drive and then bleating about costs, you have to remember that it is the 17-year old petrol heads who keep having crashes who put car insurance for their age group through the roof in the first place. Insurers charge increased premiums because of that. So encouraging even more of them to get into cars a) while they’re still under age, and b) as soon as they come of age is not going to bring those premiums down.

The problem is much deeper – perfectly illustrated by the attitude of the mother mentioned above.

The best new drivers will inevitably be found among those who have to work hard to gain a licence. Those who have it handed to them on a plate – especially when they’ve been brought up to expect that plate to be brought out whenever they want something – are more likely to have the kind of attitude that will push premiums higher still.

Birmingham (And Yorkshire) Learner Test Fail Rates

The Birmingham Mail has apparently done one of those FOI requests and discovered that some Birmingham learners have failed their test 21 times. It reports:

  • 23 failed 21 times or more
  • 105 took 16-20 attempts
  • 863 took 11-15 attempts

It also quotes similar figures for the theory test:

  • 70 had taken the test more than 20 times
  • 165 took it 15-19 times
  • 780 took it 10-14 times

It also says – without explaining the significance of the detail – that the figures cover the period 2004 to 2013. Almost a decade! So hardly the end-of-the-world scenario being implied. Furthermore, The Birmingham Mail makes the familiar mistake of behaving as if the world begins and ends with its readership. If it had done even a small amount of research it would have found this almost identical article in the Spenborough Guardian (in Yorkshire, if anyone was wondering).

The Spenborough story seems ecstatic over the fact that:

  • ¼ of the worst drivers in the country were tested at Heckmondwike
  • five women made 158 attempts between them at that test centre
  • one learner took 34 attempts
  • 2 women each took 32 attempts
  • two more took 30 attempts

Again, these data cover almost a decade, and the Spenborough Guardian also refers to the fact that Bradford saw two people take 30 1nd 31 tests, and Leeds saw someone take 32 attempts. And it also points out that as far as the theory test is concerned, two men in Leeds took 55 and 56 attempts to pass (apparently, someone in Southwark, London took 110 tries). So it might come as a bit of a surprise to the Birmingham Mail to learn that their fame only extends a few miles after all.

Both stories draw on the “expertise” of third parties to add comment. In the Birmingham story, they quote Nigel Humphries of The Alliance of British Drivers (ABD). He says:

It would be slightly worrying to be on the road with someone who has failed their driving test 20 times and only passed on the 21st.

Of course tests can be a lottery and people can get unlucky a number of times. But it is also true that some people are definitely not suited to driving but keep on taking their test.

Well, if it were that simple then I’d agree. But no mention is made of the ethnic diversity in Birmingham, a city which is traditionally seen as having a high immigrant population. As I’ve pointed out in several previous articles, non-UK drivers tend to have a desire to go to test before they are ready. As unpalatable as this may be to some people, it is just a fact of life – and one I have witnessed myself many times.

However, once you get into the realms of whether or not people are suited to driving you’re on very dangerous ground. To begin with, who is going to tell them? I don’t mean who wants to – there are plenty of very seedy people who would fit that bill. I mean who has the right or the expertise to condemn them outright? After all, on what basis do you draw an absolute conclusion about someone’s mental abilities over something that is likely to affect the entire course of their life? And you surely wouldn’t do it based solely on their country of origin? If you did, where would it stop? The last guy who tried it died in a German bunker in 1945.

Over the years I have had quite a number of pupils who privately I had hoped would just give up. A couple did – with me, at least – but others were determined to pass, and pass they did. The “worst” one I ever had who kept at it (160 hours of lessons, and the most mechanical driver you could ever wish to meet as the result of an accident when he was younger) passed on only his third attempt. I’d tried unsuccessfully to persuade him to switch to an automatic somewhere in the middle of his lessons, and I despaired of ever getting him through his test. But I was totally wrong, and I know he’s happily driving around just like any other normal person. On the other hand, I’ve had superb drivers who have had as many as nine attempts at the test before passing. One recent one I’ve mentioned previously was eventually diagnosed with adult ADHD, and he passed first time with me, though he’d failed a handful of times before I took him on. Then there was a girl several years ago who was so badly affected by nerves on test days that she was physically sick – we actually had to stop on one pre-test warm-up for her to go and be sick, and other times she was sick before she came out. She passed on her 4th attempt with me, but had previously failed five times. And then there was a Polish lad who was a great driver, but who found something different to fail on each test until he passed on something like his 7th attempt. None of those were any less deserving of their licences.

I’ve only had two who were so bad I was surprised they could even walk, let alone expect to be able to drive, and I suspect that both of them went with other instructors after they stopped lessons with me (no doubt with a bucket full of stories about how it was all my fault).

But back to the topic here, the Spenborough article quotes a local instructor.who I have to say inadvertently shows another area where the problems might be coming from. He rightly points out that the places in question have high populations of people whose first language isn’t English. But he then goes on to blame the routes and independent driving – apparently, following signs or directions is hard for non-English speakers. He finishes by saying:

It is a difficult test centre but it’s not impossible. If you do everything right on the day you should pass.

You can’t help but get the impression that he believes passing is down to chance. However, returning to the main point of the articles, the most obvious fact which everyone seems to be missing is that if people are genuinely ready for their tests then most will pass within a handful of tries. Those who are genuinely not suited to driving are in a very small minority.