News - Diary Of An ADI

Is The Driving Test Good Enough?

13/07/2013

This article in The London Evening Standard is one of those that wants to make you bang your head against a brick wall in frustration!

When The Standard says “figures show”, what it means is that someone has conducted yet another inane survey and ended up treating the results as if they actually mean something. In this case, Direct Line – which is more interested in the publicity it receives than the results of its survey – apparently “interviewed more than 1,000 parents of children who had just passed”.

One-third (32 per cent) say that driver training also leaves their children unprepared for driving on fast dual carriageways while nearly a quarter — in contrast with a UK-wide figure of 36 per cent — say that the training their children received did not even prepare the novice drivers for the capital’s roads.

Later, this is followed up with:

A total of 64 per cent of parents want a minimum supervised learning period for their children…

Excuse me! What stopped you model parents from making little Jonny or Katie take more lessons in the first place? No one was preventing you, and the instructor would have wet himself in happiness if you’d have suggested it. And what stopped you talking to the instructor and telling him what you wanted Jonny or Katie to cover? No one was stopping you from doing that, either.

In fact, any interaction you had with the instructor was probably centred on complaining about prices, and querying how many lessons it was going to take for Jonny or Katie because you “only had four” and passed easily back in the 80s. And I bet your son or daughter went to test slightly before they should have done instead of slightly after. And that’s why the results of this survey are yet another load of crap! Because they come from hypocrites.

Of the many hundreds of people I’ve taught, I can count on the fingers of one hand those (or their parents) who have said that money is no object – and even then timescales were an issue. When you only have a month or two before you emigrate/go home or leave for Uni, and have to fit in with work commitments, holidays, and school, this tends to impact on the definition of “I’ll do whatever it takes” as far as taking lessons goes.

Another key concern for parents of young drivers was their ability to concentrate when they have passengers in the car, with half of parents saying they believe their children were distracted by their friends talking to them while driving.

So don’t let them. If you were even half way to being a decent parent you’d recognise this and put it into action.

There are also more calls for motorway training (and, therefore, testing). Well, I’d welcome being able to take my pupils on motorways, but what then? Even in Nottingham it would be a 24 minute ride from Beeston Test Centre just TO the closest motorway junction, and at least double that to travel up one junction and return to base. In London it could take hours from most test centres just because of the traffic. And UK-wide there are dozens of centres out in the sticks who simply don’t have a motorway anywhere near close enough (most of the East Coast, and almost all of Wales and Scotland, for example).

But there again, there is a simple answer. Pass Plus. Nothing is stopping all you perfect parents from forcing little Jonny or Katie to take post test training – which would include motorways. Or even just paying for a couple of specific motorway lessons for them. You could even book some refresher lessons for dual carriageways and town centres if you’re that worried – but if you really are so lacking in confidence over their abilities, why the hell did you let them go for their test in the first place? Indeed, why did you even let them learn to drive?

The driving test has never been intended as anything more than the first step on a lifelong path of learning. It has never been intended to produce perfect drivers. If I may use an analogy here, anything that happens on the roads is not down to the tools people carry in their toolboxes, but to the particular tool they decide to use in any given situation. Young drivers have usually been given all the tools they need by their instructors, and they’ve been shown how to use them properly. The fact that they then decide to use a hammer in all situations once they’re out with their mates is down to them and their upbringing.

And upbringing starts at home. With the parents.

If little Jonny or Katie smash into a tree in the dark because they were speeding with a car full of friends, the blame is much more with mummy and daddy than it is with their ex-instructor.

Honestly, Officer. I Sneezed!

12/07/2013

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, News

A Range Rover in Essex smashed into an electricity pole and cut the power to hundreds of homes and businesses. The driver reckons that “he sneezed”.

I wonder if it’d have been so simple if his sneeze had caused him to plough into a pedestrian or a cyclist? As it is, all we’re talking about is several thousand pounds to replace the pole and restore power, and the loss of money to those businesses affected.

You can make your own mind up. I suppose it depends a lot on whether you’re one of those annoying people who puts on a full Shakespearean performance when they sneeze (and who is too stupid to realise that there are places where that’s not a good idea anyway), or one who doesn’t.

I sometimes sneeze in the car – everyone does. I have never even come close to having an accident as a result, and certainly not one as bad as this.

Young Driver Killed, So Blame Black Box Insurance Schemes

12/07/2013

DOAADI

ADI, News

The Sun is on one of its periodic stir-fests with this story about Ollie Pain, 18, and Harry Smith, 17, who were both killed when the car being driven by Smith (a Clio) left the road on a bend and hit trees and ditch. As if to dot the i and cross the t, the accident also happened at night on a rural road, and it appears that no other car was involved.

The title of the piece is “Young driver and pal are killed rushing to beat 11pm insurance curfew”. The coroner is also in on the act:

Coroner David Dooley said it was likely that the young farmer, of Lower Wick, was trying to get home by 11pm to avoid a £100 fine by insurers Towergate Smart.

This would be fine, except for one thing. Pain’s mother:

…doubts whether her son was rushing to beat the curfew.

She said: “He was three minutes from home and had 18 minutes to get back when the accident happened.”

I would lay odds that she is right, and the coroner wrong. Not that it matters that much, since both Pain and Smith are still dead.

People are finding the blog on the search term “black box responsible for two teenagers dying”. Let’s get this absolutely straight: the driver was totally responsible for the accident. The black box almost certainly had nothing to do with it.

It is highly irresponsible of The Sun (and that coroner) to suggest that “black box” insurance is likely to cause such accidents. Responsibility for safety remains with the driver at all times, and if they could be trusted in the first place such technology would not be needed. The simple fact is that black box technology does not pick up every single misdemeanour. In this case, Smith may have been going far too fast for the bend which killed him, but he was not speeding as such – nor would the black box have identified his speed as excessive (not unless they’ve got Google Maps and a Cray X1 inside them now).

Far more likely is that Smith was simply doing what teenagers unfortunately do. He may even have been aware of the limits the black box would allow, and was pushing them (this is only conjecture and not a suggestion that it actually happened). We just don’t know.

One thing remains, however. The most common form of accident for new, young drivers is:

male under 24
more than one occupant
at night
on a country road
on a bend
no other car involved

For whatever reasons, Smith played this out to the letter.

I notice that some people are criticising black box insurance for “not always” being cheaper than regular insurance. These people are so annoying. They simply haven’t got a clue what they are talking about.

Black box insurance (BBI) is intended to reward good driving behaviour after it has been demonstrated. What the hell would be the point of rewarding it before? And the “reward” is premiums edging gradually closer to what normal drivers would pay – not a sudden and immediate drop to normal driver levels. Insurance is about risk, and not some stupid winner-takes-all game. The whole reason for BBI even having to exist is because statistically those people looking into getting it are generally already quoted high premiums because of the age group they’re in. Their age group has been proven statistically to be a huge risk compared to everyone else. Such a huge risk, in fact, that is has become essential for premiums to be hiked for the whole group (otherwise, all of us would have to pay a lot more for their insurance). BBI is a way by which those 17-24 year old group members who don’t bring the group down can be rewarded – which is exactly what the bleeding hearts/weak brains out there are always demanding when they say it is “unfair” to penalise all 17-24 years olds. New drivers are always a greater risk than experienced ones, so they will always have higher premiums one way or the other. It’s always been like that.

Even with normal insurance there are – rightly or wrongly – massive differences in quotes both between companies, and between individual quotes for what would appear to be similar people living in similar environments. BBI is just another insurance policy, and typical quotes for it will be higher than some and lower than other insurance quotes – be it the regular kind, or a competitor’s version of BBI.

Out of many hundreds of pupils, I have never managed to pick up any sort of pattern to the quotes they get from insurers. One 17-year old male managed to get insurance on an old Fiesta for £795, whilst at the same time several girls were quoted over £2,000 for new Clios and Meganes. One 21-year old living in a rough area with only on-road parking recently got insured on a Ka for under £2,000, whereas others having secure parking available were getting quotes in excess of £3,000. And some receive impossible quotes of more than £8,000 on bog-standard cars. Insurers are a law unto themselves.

As long as there can be such a vast difference between the amounts quoted by insurers to a single driver, people will shop around for the cheapest – and for the vast majority of “responsible” parents (and that even includes those who take part in stupid surveys) that means no BBI for little Jonny or Katie if a regular insurance quote is cheaper.All that matters is money – the crocodile tears can come later if Jonny or Katie is involved in a crash.

As long as BBI remains non-compulsory in 17-24 year olds, those “responsible” parents will continue to contribute directly to the fatalities resulting from their little angels’ immature behaviour on the roads.

AA Instructor Rescued By The RAC

10/07/2013

DOAADI

ADI, News

This one sort of makes you smile. AOL is carrying a story concerning an AA driving instructor who got a puncture in Edinburgh. For reasons which haven’t been fully explained, the recovery vehicle sent out was an RAC one. The RAC is The AA’s main competitor.

To be honest, it’s no big deal. But it does raise a few questions if you’re going to be nosey.

As I understand it, AA instructors are provided with a list of phone numbers to call, and there is no way that any of these will be linked to the RAC. So you have to perhaps ask what number the instructor dialled, and why he or she didn’t call the proper one. For “systems issue” (the term used in the article), you could read “cock-up by someone, somewhere”.

The next issue is the one about not carrying a spare. It is absolute, cost-cutting madness not to provide full-sized spare wheels in any car, let alone one used by a driving instructor. I’d also take issue with the AA spokesperson’s comments on that in the article about cars being supplied without spares these days – they can be demanded as an optional extra. The only reason not to make such a demand is to keep costs down. Jeez, over the last 5 years, DAB radio, Bluetooth, electric mirrors and windows, parking sensors, and all kinds of other gizmos have become standard on most cars (and these add hundreds or even thousands to the price if you request them when you buy a new vehicle). So it makes you wonder what utter prat at any of these car companies decided that a proper spare wheel costing a few tens of pounds shouldn’t be standard in all their new models.

All in all, the whole thing is a storm in a tea cup. The AA will be smarting, and the RAC smiling, and the world will carry on as it ever has.

Tackling Drug Driving In The UK

10/07/2013

DOAADI

ADI, News

A consultation has been launched on the issue of drug driving in the UK. It is open until 17 September 2013. Responses have to be sent either via email or snail mail (at the time of writing). There is no bespoke online submission method.

I agree fully that there should be strict legislation regarding driving under the influence of drugs, although I have a few concerns about the proposals.

To start with, they’re only targeting a handful of specific drugs – cannabis is an example. However, a growing menace is the use of so-called “synthetic” cannabis, which has chemical entities added which mimic the action of THC, and yet are not THC. These entities are not on the list, and the typical drug user will simply switch to them if they know they can get away with it. Magic Mushrooms (known as Shrooms amongst the mental cases who use them) are also not on the list.

In addition, they appear to be trying to distinguish between those who use drugs for “recreational” purposes and those who have them prescribed. If something is likely to have the same physiological and psychological effect, it doesn’t matter what they’re being taken for. It should be illegal for anyone to have them in their system.

And there is also a question over detection limits and test reliability (THC can be detected for anywhere up to several months in some cases, yet some regular users still manage to pass drug tests)..

They’re entering a veritable minefield, and the risk of loopholes being created from the off is immense if they’re not careful.

Despatch: July 2013

09/07/2013

DOAADI

ADI, DSA, News

You can read the latest edition of Despatch here. In this issue they cover proposed changes to the route to becoming an ADI, the DSA/VOAS merger, a change to the situation regarding disabled ADIs, a report on a clampdown on illegal instructors, and the usual roundup of other stuff.

I still wish that Despatch was about 10 pages longer – the articles really need more space. Then again, the attention span of 21st century readers probably wouldn’t be able to cope.

“Special” ADI Module For Cyclists

06/07/2013

DOAADI

ADI, News, Training

Nicely following on from the tragedy in that last story, several driving schools have reportedly “created” special modules for their instructors to use when teaching learners how to handle cyclists. You can read more in ADI News but you’ll have to subscribe to the magazine itself (which is very worthwhile).

But it makes me smile. If instructors need “special” modules for dealing with cyclists, you have to wonder what the hell they’ve been teaching up until now. And is anyone naive enough to believe that the tragedy reported wouldn’t have happened if learner drivers were trained differently? No one ever seems to question deficiencies in the training that cyclists receive (i.e. virtually none in most cases).

No learner I have ever taken on has been under the impression that there is an open season on cyclists, or that it’s OK to run over one. In fact, the biggest problem by far is that they initially try to give them so much room that they don’t take account of oncoming vehicles or parked cars on the other side of the road. Beyond that, the task is to get them to try and anticipate and not try to barge through narrow gaps – which applies when dealing with any other road user, and not just cyclists.

The Highway Code says of the matter:

211

It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think. When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully.

212

When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.

213

Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

163
[Partial quotation]

give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car

When on lessons, learners will inevitably encounter cyclists in real situations, and extremely common questions include:

why isn’t he on the cycle path?
why did he go through that red light?

You don’t need to be a genius to work out the answer to these, and I always answer completely truthfully. No politically correct claptrap to try and make the cyclist in question come out as a saint – just the plain truth. I’ve ridden with them before, and the reasons they ride on the road instead of the cycle path include:

deliberately trying to show how he’s entitled to use the road
they reckon they get punctures on the cycle paths
trying to avoid having to slow down for junctions (and they’ll often hop on to the path anyway if the lights ahead change)

Indeed, the group I rode with openly admitted that it deliberately held up cars on country lanes by riding two abreast – particularly if the car sounded its horn at them – and I am certain that this group wasn’t unique. As far as jumping red lights goes (I’ve seen three do it today – two Spandex Boys, and one gorilla on a mountain bike) they simply don’t know, don’t care, and probably both. I also point out to learners that someone who shoots a red light on a bike (or who hops on to the pavement at the last minute to use the footpath) is quite likely to be as blasé about the whole business when they’re in a car.

It seems that both The AA (including BSM) and RED have introduced these special “modules. The AA’s news release is here. RED is unfortunately on Facebook, which means you’ll not be able to find anything meaningful (well, maybe if you’re quick, but not if you try the link after a few days), but I will tell you that at this moment in time RED is claiming that it:

…asked over 1,000 cyclists and 98% feel more should be done to educate new drivers on the importance of cyclist safety.

I just have to put my head in my hands and wonder what the world is coming to with stuff like that. It’s like asking a thousand petty criminals if they think they should be let out of prison early, and somehow thinking that they must have a point if 98% of them say yes. What do RED expect cyclists to say? No?

The problem is that the sudden newsworthiness of the subject is partially linked to one particular incident, which is a prime example of the lowest intelligence in human society being able to get a driving licence. Emma Way tweeted the following after she knocked one off:

Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier – I have right of way he doesn’t even pay road tax! #bloodycyclists

Let’s just get our facts straight here – it isn’t the phrase “bloody cyclists” which is the problem (that was in the hash tag anyway), but the fact she nearly killed one in a road traffic accident and doesn’t seem to have reported it or stopped at the scene, or even to have been concerned, but then showed off about it. It was her childish trust in Twitter, and her overall outlook on life those few words convey which was her downfall. You can read more on that link above – she’s going to get in serious trouble, and it serves her right if the accusations are true – though the rest of the article is rabidly pro-cyclist. If Emma Way is at one complete extreme of the spectrum*, the authors of the article are at the opposite extreme. And in both cases, I mean “extreme”. Absolutely as far as it is possible to go.

Because let’s not lose sight of the fact that many cyclists ARE a bloody nuisance on the roads, especially with so many of them thinking that they’re Bradley Wiggins since last summer – and it is deficiencies in them, perhaps typified by the rabid rhetoric in parts of the article above (particularly the comments below it – some of those people don’t seem to realise that what they’re saying is as bad as what Emma Way said), which are at the root of the problem. Not the motorist.

* At the moment, there is some dispute over what actually happened. Emma Way might have all the social conscience of a dog on a croquet lawn as far as her tweet and underlying attitude goes (not to mention some of the other things she has apparently said and done, according to her Facebook pages), but her version of events does have a certain plausible ring about it. And the cyclist involved, Toby Hockley, refused to talk to the BBC any further.

Update: Emma Way has pleaded not guilty to three charges related to the incident. The case is to go to trial in November.

Update: Emma Way was found guilty of two of the three charges – failing to stop, and failing to report an accident. She was acquitted of driving without due care and attention. The rapid pro-cycling lobby will be unhappy about this, I guess. Mind you, some of them would appear to have found a creative way of dealing with it.

Cyclist On “Boris Bike” Killed In London

06/07/2013

DOAADI

ADI, News, Transport

I just saw this on the BBC news website. It reports that a 17-year old female cyclist (later reports, and the BBC’s updated one, say that she was 20) riding one of those hired “Boris bikes” has been knocked off by a lorry and killed.

London is one of the busiest cities in the world, and has some of the most congested roads in the world. Something like this is always highly likely when you add bikes to the mix. To make matters worse, if you consider what it says on that Wikipedia page, 49% of those hiring Boris Bikes only took up riding in London because of the facility. Since the company has 8,000 bicycles, that means an extra 4,000 bike riders are out on London’s streets who wouldn’t have been otherwise.

Furthermore, the Boris Bikes are ridden on “Boris Routes” – dedicated lanes, often painted blue. Just take a look at the picture on the left to imagine the potential risks (you’ll have to imagine the tens of thousands of cars and lorries that would otherwise be on the road at peak times on weekdays – the picture is strangely devoid of them, though the length of the cyclists’ shadows and the greenery suggests this was taken very late or very early in the day, and I would guess at a weekend).

The circumstances of the accident are not known. Later reports say it happened on Friday evening at around 6.30pm, which is right in the middle of London’s Friday night rush hour, and one with a forecast super-hot summer weekend ahead of it. Obviously, it is a huge tragedy.

But I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: roads are primarily intended for motor vehicles, not bicycles. Creating a false belief that it is otherwise – either through reckless bike hire or the continual green/political pro-bike lobbying – just increases the chances of something like this happening.

Everyone is eager to point out that this is the first fatality involving a hire bike since the scheme began in 2010. However, the BBC article clearly states that Transport for London is anxious to “further reduce” collisions involving cyclists all over London. Or in other words, cyclists having accidents (or very near misses) is not at all uncommon. Other reports mention two cyclists being killed on the same route in 2011 – though they weren’t on Boris Bikes, hence the TfL comments.

Personality Tests For Scottish Tram Drivers

06/07/2013

DOAADI

ADI, News, Transport

I’ve mentioned oxymorons before, so seeing the phrase “personality test” in the same sentence as “Scottish” did initially make me do a double take.

The article itself is even more amusing. Apparently, Edinburgh tram drivers will have to take a personality test to identify “risk takers” and weed them out. Reading between the lines (no pun), you can only conclude that Edinburgh’s current crop of drivers are wont to put their foot down, start doing doughnuts, and basically drive to places that are different to where the tracks are supposed to take them.

Lothian Buses (who operate the trams) refused to comment. I’ll bet they did. And the reason for that is because only someone who works for the council would be able to say the following line with a straight face – and probably even believe it:

[The recruitment process to] build an enthusiastic and skilled team to operate the service is progressing well.

He said the tests were standard across the rail industry and “considered good practice”, adding: “It ensures we have safe and competent people driving Edinburgh’s trams.”

Please don’t vomit all over your keyboard, people. This is what modern business deals with – and the bigger the business the worse the crap is that they spout. Councils simply take it to the next cringe level and beyond.

Don’t think that it is cost-effective, either. They’ve got to employ bouncers to keep people off the trams while the tests are being conducted (so they’re not written tests – they’re based on observation). I have a feeling that the source may have got its wires crossed here (or written its story poorly) and be talking about a separate kind of testing (i.e. of the carriage, not the driver), because for some unexplained reason (I guess you’d know if you were a tram driver), further additional staff are to be employed, tasked with:

…sitting in on test runs through the city centre as trams stop at each of the 16 stations and open their doors to ensure the mechanisms are working correctly.

You couldn’t make it up. Why make something so simple so complicated? The answer, unfortunately, is contained in the word “council” which – by definition – means using 10 or more people where one would suffice.

Teaching 11-year Olds To Drive – An Absolute Waste Of Time

06/07/2013

DOAADI

ADI, News

Regular readers will know that the idea of giving driving lessons to 11-year olds isn’t new. I first caught wind of it last year, and it has been repeated since. It goes back to at least February 2012.

So it was interesting to hear of a “pioneering” (maybe that’s a bad misspelling of “plagiarised”) and “revolutionary” scheme in This Is Bath which teaches… 11-year olds to drive. Maybe someone should explain to This Is Bath hacks what “pioneering” and “revolutionary” actually mean, because they obviously don’t know.

By teaching safe driving at a younger age, this revolutionary programme has the potential to save hundreds of lives each year.

Complete bollocks. Unless it can turn every child in the country into a law-abiding citizen who never goes on to commit a crime for the rest of their lives, it will have no effect on casualty rates at all. That’s because the main cause of accidents among young drivers is attitude. Yes, skill levels are also involved, but in an extremely complex way.

The older people are, the less likely they are to have an accident – and remember that not all new drivers are 17-years old. You get loads of 20- and 30-somethings, and yet 17-25 year olds dominate the accident statistics by a huge margin. That’s largely because the brain doesn’t mature until around 25-years old, and the younger someone is, the less mature the brain is.

It should be obvious that most 11-year olds don’t remember important things they were taught back then when they reach 17. So driving lessons at that age can only ever have any sort of benefit if they are continued regularly – just like music lessons. But someone who spends their entire childhood learning to play the violin can still turn into a little psychopath when behind the wheel of a car at age 17. Still, at least they’ll be a psychopath who can play violin.

And that’s my point: they behave how they want to behave. The 17-year old who took kiddie-lessons when he was 11 will still behave like a prat – he’ll just be a prat who could behave differently if it suited him. And don’t forget that those lessons for 11-year olds aren’t cheap. They go for about £60 an hour, so doing one hour a week for the period 11-17 years will set someone back £15,000!

Remember that these courses are run by businesses, not a charities. Being able to charge £60 an hour from wealthy (but not very bright) parents is a brilliant sales scheme, but that’s all.

Category - News