Category - News

Uninsured Lunatic Learner: II

This one from Scotland. Liam Donaldson was 16 when he stole the car of a “family friend” after boozing with pals.

He lost control in Aberdeen during the early hours, hit a lamp post, went through a garden wall, and smashed into the property of a couple of OAPs. The car stopped next to their bed, in which they were sleeping at the time.

Donaldson did a runner and was tracked down by his DNA on the airbag (so the police must have had him on record already). The list of charges includes:

  • stealing a car
  • driving without a licence
  • driving without insurance
  • injuring Mrs Gordon (one of the OAPs)
  • damaging property by dangerous driving
  • drink-driving
[The Sheriff] told Donaldson: “This is absolutely appalling. I take it you understand that you face a possible prison sentence.”

The scumbag has been bailed until January and banned from driving until sentenced.

Update: Scumbag Donaldson avoided jail.

Sheriff William Summers said it was “frankly astonishing” no one had been more seriously injured.

But he said he could see reasons not to sentence the first offender to detention.

He placed him under an 18-month supervision order and ordered him to carry out a total of 260 hours of unpaid work as a direct alternative to custody.

The Scottish legal system isn’t as good as previous cases had led me to believe.

Uninsured Lunatic Learner: I

I wonder if the ADIs out there who think they’re life coaches could do anything about this little scumbag.

Obviously not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, Christopher Wade was clocked doing 85mph by the police, who pulled him over. Since he only has a provisional licence, he lied to police and told them he was his younger brother. When the caution arrived in the post, his mother informed them that they’d got the wrong driver.

It turned out that Wade is already on a suspended sentence for perverting the course of justice in March this year.

David Forrester, defending, said: “He has a legitimate provisional licence and is taking his test very soon.

“He normally gets a lift to work, but on this occasion the person who takes him cried off.

“He was desperate and was going to be late so took the car.”

Aaaah. Bless. That makes it all right, then.

The court has yet to decide if it will take action on the suspended sentence.

People like this shouldn’t be on the streets, let alone the roads. No one can change them.

Another Tragic Death, Played Almost To The Script

This came through on the newsfeeds. Another tragic death down to the inexperience of the driver.

With every single one of my pupils I explain the statistics associated with young, new drivers. The most common accidents involving:

  • rural road
  • at night
  • passengers in the car
  • on a bend
  • no other car involved

In almost all cases, the accident comes down to inexperience, not reading the road ahead, and being unable to handle the sudden bend or feature.

In this particular case, the driver was in a Corsa, with passengers, and had been to McDonalds. The report mentions “that night”. The court concluded that she over-compensated for something whilst travelling at 50-60mph on a 60mph road, and braked too hard. This caused the car to spin out and collide with another vehicle. The driver had only had her licence for a little over six months.

Considering the story, it is like reading a tragic script that just gets repeated again and again.

The Kiwis Have Lost It, Big Time!

This came through on the newsfeeds. Apparently, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) in New Zealand has – for some unfathomable reason – decided to teach dogs how to drive a vehicle. I won’t call it a “car”, because it isn’t.

Apparently, it’s a publicity stunt aimed at showing dog owners thinking of abandoning their pets how intelligent they are. This doesn’t even go half way to explaining why it is therefore necessary to teach them to drive.

To the lesser mind, the suggestion that dogs are “intelligent” enough to drive naturally implies that they could also compete with humans on the professional sports front, become airline pilots, and become eligible to vote. Perhaps in New Zealand, but anywhere else…?

It’s a monumental waste of (New Zealand) money.

Driving Is For Adults, Not For Children: I

These things are multiplying like fungus at the moment (link now dead) – another scheme aimed at encouraging children to want to drive cars before they’re physically and mentally developed enough to deal with it.

Pick of the quotes:

The Goodyear scheme teaches young people theoretical aspects of the Highway Code and practical road safety skills ahead of their 17th birthday when they can officially take their tests.

This suggests that by taking lessons before they’re 17 they can pass immediately they open their prezzies on the day. And this one from a 15-year old:

When in the car with my friends or family I might think about how difficult it is to drive and the rules they have to drive to. I’m really excited to take my test, pass and get a car.

I wonder if he (or those like him) will be able to contain their excitement until they can legally and safely drive?

Apparently, this is all down to some idiotic EU directive which, in turn appears to be seeded by some idiotic EU members who have minimum driving ages of 16 (with parents supervising). Those between 11 and 16 can take part.

Like the title says – and as I’ve stated more than once – driving is for adults, not for children. And I’ve added the “I” because I can see this one running and running.

Does Alcopal Work? (Update)

Since I wrote about Alcopal a few months ago, I must admit that I haven’t kept my eye on its website (although this blog still gets a lot of hits via the search engines).Snake Oil label

However, today I received a press release from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) listing its weekly adjudications, and Alcopal was one of them. It seems that the purveyors of Alcopal have been busy re-writing their claims on their website, because the ones that have been ruled against definitely weren’t there when the story first broke in the summer.

It seems that gobbledegook has become the order of the day, and the site was now advertising the following:

Be CAREFUL if you’re considering DRINKING then DRIVING Going out to celebrate or just having a good time? ‘Be Careful’ if you’re driving. Always take ALCO-PAL with you … Take the recommended dose and it could make all the difference if you’re breathalyzed [sic] ALCO-PAL helps to reduce the alcohol breath you expel from your lungs. Alcopal effectively reduces and prevents the absorbtion [sic] of alcohol from the inner lining of the stomach and intestine into the systemic flow (blood stream). This helps in reducing the burden on the liver and kidneys. Please note if you are way over the recommended alcohol limit this product will not help you.

How contradictory can you get? They actually state that it won’t help you if you’re over the limit, and yet they state that it can drop your breath-alcohol level to within-limit if it is outside! Of course, I explained why it didn’t work in my previous article.

The ASA has upheld the complaint from RoSPA and told Alcopal that they must not advertise this again. Note what ASA says in their ruling:

…while the ad included the text “Please note if you are way over the recommended alcohol limit this product will not help you”, its overall impression was that the product could help consumers bypass the law and that drinking and driving was therefore acceptable. We considered the text “Please note if you are way over the recommended alcohol limit this product will not help you” was likely to be interpreted as suggesting the product could help consumers who were over the legal limit for driving, provided they were not “way over”. We considered that text, combined with the other claims, encouraged consumers to drink and drive and thereby incited them to break the law. We also noted the ad suggested the effects of drinking alcohol could be masked. For those reasons, we concluded that the ad was irresponsible.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising), 1.10 (Legality) and 4.6 (Harm and offence).

You can view the full ruling here.

Just When You Thought The Olympics Was Over…

…Kate goes and gets pregnant! (That’s the Duchess of Cambridge – Prince William’s wife – to my non-UK visitors).

Now we’re going to have to endure 9 months of BBC boot-licking on this subject, which kicked off well this morning with the entire breakfast show dedicated to interviewing people who just said “it’s wonderful news”. And reporters standing pointlessly in the cold outside the bloody hospital. And on the radio, the same nauseous gush from women who “are pregnant just like Kate”.

A warning to the BBC and Daily Mail: if you overdo it you will start turning the public off the Royals. Even the most loyal of Daily Mail readers is only going to put up with blanket coverage for so long, and that’s saying something.

I wonder if there’ll be a “souvenir pull-out” in any of the weekend papers? Jeez. Then there will be all those commemorative plates and coins in the back pages.

I think I’ll emigrate.

Coldest Winter EVER. With Knobs On. 2012 Episode

The Daily Mail has lost its primary source of news now that the floods are receding and the rain has moved away. So what can it do next?

Answer: predict the coldest winter for 100 years.

They carefully avoid any direct mention of precisely who it is who is providing this information. Second-rate journos haven’t yet moved into meteorology as a side line as far as I know, so this smacks of the usual suspects providing wild guesses for the Mail’s editors to wet themselves over.

I have recently mentioned Exacta’s annual guess. This one – whoever it is from – is totally different. And we know it isn’t the Met Office, because they stopped doing long range forecasts after getting it totally wrong every time (the Met Office has trouble telling you what the weather is doing right now sometimes).

Also remember that the Mail forecast the same last year and got it totally and utterly wrong – so wrong, it was like calling heads and getting tails.

I love the part in the Mail story about water “blowing upwards”. Big deal. It does that when it’s windy.

The Stupidest Idea Ever For Reducing Young Driver Accidents

Two stories came through in the feeds today and between them they present absolutely the most stupid and ill-conceived remedy for reducing accidents among young drivers.

Before I go on, let’s just remind ourselves that young drivers have accidents due to a combination of inexperience per se and simple biology. It’s an inalienable fact of life that you can’t become experienced in anything without passing through the realms of inexperience first. It’s also an inalienable fact that the human brain isn’t fully mature until the age of around 25. And there’s bugger all anyone can do about either of those things.

But that doesn’t stop them trying.

First of all, Fleet Directory reports on statistics I have mentioned several times in the last few months – that although drivers in the age range 17-24 only account for an eighth of all road users, they are involved in a quarter of all serious or fatal accidents. And the solution to this is… start teaching them to drive cars from the age of 11.

Yes, you read that right. From the age of eleven!

In actual fact, it’s yet another carefully orchestrated publicity stunt – this time by SEAT. I reported back in February this year of a similar idiotic caper, championed by Quentin Willson, and others have also attempted to gain valuable advertising by pushing off-road lessons for toddlers and getting amateur journos to talk about it.

Fleet Directory claims that this is the only such scheme in the country – well, unless the story I reported on back in February is the same scheme, they’re completely wrong on that one! So you wonder how wrong they might also be in their gushing support.

Naturally, IAM is sticking its oar in and is filling its collective colostomy bag at the idea.

But as if 11 wasn’t young enough, this story from the Evening Express in Scotland reports that Aberdeen Council is looking to build a junior driving facility where they’d take people as young as three! Apparently, the “facility” would be available to pre-school clubs and primary schools.

IAM hasn’t latched on to that one yet, but I’m sure they’ll think it’s a spiffing idea.

What planet are these people on? In just the same way that giving sex education to primary school kids hasn’t cut teenage pregnancy – quite the opposite, having whetted their appetites – giving them driving lessons is fraught with similar problems.

When I mentioned that original scheme back in February I said that if you give a typical 11-year old the chance to drive a car, he isn’t likely to want to wait another 6 years until he can go for his licence. A 3-year old definitely won’t want to wait 14 years, and having been fed “grown-up” ideas to a brain that simply isn’t grown-up, he probably won’t.

Cars are for adults. We already have way too many of them on the roads as it is, and this idiotic scheme can only have one eventual outcome – reducing the minimum age for driving, and so artificially increasing the number of drivers out there.

As I mentioned above, the human brain doesn’t mature until around 25 years (and the modern male is 5 years behind that, anyway). While it is maturing, it needs gentle conditioning. It can’t be slammed into adult-overdrive just because of some bizarre moneymaking publicity event by people who don’t have a clue.