An email alert from the DSA advises people who have their tests booked May 10 to attend as normal.
PCS – the union involved – is obviously still determined to show the public what a bunch of prats it really is, whilst remaining under the impression that people are still mentally stuck in the Dark Ages with it, and are actually impressed by the idea of a strike.
As I’ve said before, not all examiners are in the union, and not all those who are get involved in strike action anyway.
If you’re worried, rearrange your test.
Why are the DSA on strike on May 10?
It isn’t specifically the DSA who are striking. It is various government bodies who are refusing to accept the government’s pension offer. Pensions are the latest tool in the armoury of those who prefer striking to working for a living.
The union involved claims it wants the government to “come to the negotiating table”. In plain English, this just means that they will not be happy until they get exactly what THEY want.
It isn’t just PCS either. The police are complaining about their pensions and are organising demonstrations. Unions involved cover the civil service, universities, schools, colleges, and the NHS.
The government has already made improved offers as a result of last year’s strikes, but as the union says, “these are not enough”. They demand a “fair settlement”. As I say, this amounts to EVERYTHING they are demanding, and nothing less will do.
Don’t forget that the tanker drivers are complaining about similar issues, which prompted the panic buying fiasco a few weeks ago. Pensions is the current hot topic.
Two stories which complement each other beautifully in the news today.
Firstly, there is this one about a 74-year old woman who has passed her test after 58 years. To be fair, it seems that when she began learning back in 1954 she never actually took the test and only started learning again over the last year or so. She passed on her third attempt (which is not bad for a lot of people – whatever their age).
Then there is this story about a woman who was knocked down in a car park by an 87-year old man, who was subsequently found guilty of driving without due care and attention, given 6 points, and fined £550 with £700 costs. He was not banned or ordered to take a re-test. It seems that the old man accelerated into the woman he hit.
It seems that in court, the driver admitted he didn’t see the woman.
A spokeswoman for the Association of British Insurers (ABI) said insurance premiums start climbing once drivers reach 75 because of the increasing risk from deteriorating eyesight, using the car less and slower reactions.
Now, there is nothing to say the lady in the first story is a poor driver, but you have to wonder how long that can last for when you keep seeing stories like the second one – and ones like this one (Cassie’s Law still needs signatures, so make sure you sign it).
A very interesting article in The Times. It reports on a cab firm owner in London, John Griffin, who has really upset the greenies down his way.
Before I pass my own opinion, I think we can safely assume that the guy is being taken out of context as far as is humanly possible without actually accusing him of saying things he didn’t actually say.
You can read his original article in “add lib” (the magazine it’s from) here, but this is the exact text:
Green party candidates and others are up in arms about what they see as the murder of Cyclists on London Roads.
There has, as we all know, been a tremendous upsurge in cycling and cycling shops. This summer the roads will be thick with bicycles. These cyclists are throwing themselves onto some of the most congested spaces in the world. They leap onto a vehicle which offers them no protection except a padded plastic hat.
Should a motorist fail to observe a granny wobbling to avoid a pothole or a rain drain, then he is guilty of failing to anticipate that this was somebody on her maiden voyage into the abyss. The fact is he just didn’t see her and however cautious, caring or alert he is, the influx of beginner cyclists is going to lead to an overall increase in accidents involving cyclists.
The rest of us occupying this roadspace have had to undergo extensive training. We are sitting inside a protected space with impact bars and air bags and paying extortionate amounts of taxes on our vehicle purchase, parking, servicing, insurance and road tax.
It is time for us to say to cyclists, ‘You want to join our gang, get trained and pay up’.
It isn’t a very long article, really. So let’s look at what he says.
Yes, the Green Brigade HAS been up in arms. Yes, there HAS been a huge increase in cycling participation and yes, the roads ARE thick with them. Yes, London DOES have some of the busiest roads in the world and yes, people who buy bikes DO go straight out without a thought either for themselves or anyone else.
Yes, if a motorist is hit effectively hit by one of these idiots – and the idiot subsequently injured or killed – the motorist is almost certainly going to find himself with points or a ban. And that’s only if he’s lucky.
Yes, drivers DO have to undergo training and yes, we DO have to pay for that training, road and other taxes, insurance, parking, repairs, and so on.
And yes, a cyclist has to do none of these things. Yes, they ought to have to.
So Mr Griffin hasn’t really said anything that’s particularly controversial. It only becomes controversial when you convince yourself he’s somehow said it’s all right to “murder cyclists” when, in actual fact, it seems that it was the Green Party who brought up that pathetic phrase in the first place to try and force its own doctrine on the majority.
I would also add that cyclists can freely choose to ignore cycle lanes in favour of the busy road, and they usually do (it’s always either the fat, middle-aged ones who think they’re athletes, or the horrid, spindly Spandex Brigade who almost invariably have personality problems).
There is not one single word in John Griffin’s article which is incorrect. He is totally, utterly right in every way.
Cyclists – in general – are an absolute menace. Not because they’re cyclists, but because they haven’t got a clue about road safety as it relates to them. I’ve mentioned them several times in the last few years because it is always this time of year they come out en masse (they can’t be THAT serious if they wait until it’s sunny).
It is the en masse crowd who are often the main problem. There are too many of them, they always use the most dangerous roads, and they simply haven’t got a clue.
Yes, they have every right. But they also have every right to expect a higher risk of accident if they insist on riding two abreast on single track roads with zigzag bends, not giving way to anyone or anything (that seemed to disappear from their Highway Code donkey’s years ago), riding on to pedestrian crossings and the pavement to avoid traffic lights, ignoring traffic lights, not using purpose-built paths, and so on and on.
And if they’re going to use the roads, they should be taxed and insured like everyone else.
Obviously, my own experiences don’t relate specifically to London. But as we know, there are those for whom London is a magical place, full of pixies, gnomes, and other things that make them regard it as The Centre Of The Universe. In fact, London is a dangerous city full of ridiculously congested roads. And if it’s got a load of cyclists as well, then it’s a hundred times worse still!
If you want to see the view from a parallel universe (i.e. the one cyclists live in) take a look here.
This story from Canada reports that from tomorrow (Sunday), drivers in Quebec under/including the age of 21 face an immediate 3-month ban if they drive with ANY alcohol in their bloodstream. The limit for older drivers remains unchanged (it’s the same limit as in the UK).
According to the article, it means young drivers have to spend five years being completely sober if they drive.
New drivers in Quebec are already forbidden from drinking at age 16 with a learner’s permit, and for two years once they get their provisional. This change means that is now extended up to the age of 22.
The new rule also allows police to stop young drivers to test them.
Apparently, Ontario, Manitoba, and New Brunswick in Canada already have the same rule, where it has apparently been effective.
Some countries’ leaders definitely have more balls than ours do.
This is an old post and the ideas discussed never came to anything.
One of the possible changes to the driving test, mooted a while back and exhumed periodically, was that instructors might be allowed to sign off their own pupils for competence in the manoeuvres. I commented briefly on the idea back in 2009 when it was last aired. I should also point out that it is fortunately unlikely to ever happen.
I have never thought that it would be a good idea. But I have always though that it would be suicidal to let ADIs have a direct say in the outcome of a driving test other than through the normal training they provide, and doubly so if they could do it without anyone seeing what they were up to.
Pass Plus is a perfect example of my concerns. It is a post-test course which was intended to provide additional training and experience to new drivers after they acquired their licences. It’s content already acknowledged that many newly-qualified drivers may never have driven on rural roads, or at night, or in bad weather, or even on fast dual carriageways. Even at this stage of the discussion you have to wonder how so many learners manage to go through the entire learning process without encountering at least some of those things, but they do.
With hindsight, Pass Plus made a few mistakes. It simply didn’t allow for stupidity, greed, and dishonesty – traits which are far more widespread than many would like to believe – and ended up by:
offering reduced Insurance
allowing any ADI to register to deliver it
allowing ADIs to sign it off
allowing any module to be carried out in theory rather than practice
Reduced insurance became the only reason for 95% or more of candidates to do the course in the first place. Allowing all ADIs to sign it off (there are around 45,000 of them, remember) introduced the possibility of fraud. And allowing modules to be completed in theory merely made such fraud more likely.
The Pass Plus course brief makes it clear that any training must be done after the driving test. You cannot use what you covered with pupils on learner lessons as Pass Plus material. And yet you see instructors openly admitting to doing precisely this, presumably because they just don’t understand the instructions (or haven’t read them). There are even more examples of candidates revealing the same thing (usually by implying some clandestine agreement), and in those cases one can presume that whoever signed the course as being complete knew exactly what they were doing. After all, Pass Plus – if done properly – requires many more miles of driving per session than most instructors’ lessons would.
The Pass Plus brief also clearly says that all modules must be delivered as practical sessions wherever possible. Realistically, for most instructors this means the bad weather module is the one most likely to be covered theoretically, since one cannot guarantee bad weather. But again, you see instructors openly arguing that they don’t live near a motorway or fast dual carriageway, or that they don’t work nights. As a result, they end up covering around half of the course in theory only – and even then, I doubt very much that they spend the equivalent number of hours talking “in the classroom”, as they like to call it. The Pass Plus course has to last a minimum of 6 hours, so even if you had to catch two ferries to get to a motorway on the mainland it would still be technically possible in 99% of cases. As for not working evenings… well, you really shouldn’t be offering Pass Plus if you’re that half-hearted about your responsibilities.
I remember once seeing someone write that the nearest motorway was “over half an hour away”, and this was why they covered it in theory only. Well, I live quite close to the M1 – and it would take me half an hour to get to it with most pupils. The motorway module on the course is by far the most important one for most candidates. I don’t consider it to be “inaccessible”.
At the extreme end of the spectrum there are even people who sign off Pass Plus without doing any training at all. They pocket the money in exchange for a signature or two – and it would appear that those signatures are sometimes not even on official Pass Plus stationery, but on photocopies of it (another topic you see being discussed from time to time), thus avoiding paying for Pass Plus refill packs.
I’m sure the majority of instructors deliver Pass Plus correctly. However, those who don’t have effectively destroyed the validity of the course which – if done properly – is extremely useful to new drivers.
So I was interested to read an article from an Australian driving instructor (link now dead) about the testing system over there. I have obtained his permission to link to his website article.
Until March this year, it seems, Australian driving instructors (in the Northern Territory) were allowed to sign off pupils for driving licences. This has been stopped, and everyone now has to take a proper driving test. The instructor says that he is glad and explains why.
He received frequent calls from people saying that friends had taken lessons and got the required certificate “after 3 hours” with another instructor, so could he do the same.
He explains that the mechanism for delivering certificated courses under the Australian Quality Framework is merely paperwork-based and does not assess how people in the field actually perform. He gives an example of how trainers with skills in one discipline would be asked to deliver training in another.
He cites another example of how an organisation delivering driving courses produced training packages that said everyone would be ready to be signed off after only 8 hours practical tuition.
He says that some instructors took to the idea like ducks to water, and cars started appearing saying “NOW WE TEST YOU”.
He mentions a case he knew of where an instructor completed the written part of the test for a candidate and simply got him to sign it, and he also suggests that such dishonesty is not confined to this one incident.
He gives other examples of people be signed off after doing even fewer hours of practical training. He says that some schools specialised in “get a licence quick” programmes, whereas he and one of his colleagues were only prepared to sign off a maximum of five candidates in a one year period (i.e. the standards of driving were extremely low, so if what he was seeing were typical of drivers, how could anyone else sign them off more quickly without some compromise?)
His article is definitely worth a read. It could almost be a prediction of what would happen in the UK if such a great responsibility were ever passed to ADIs.
But to be honest, I think the authorities over here know that – which is why, as I said at the start, it will never happen.
This story reports that 14% of drivers admit to “fronting” for their children, and another 13% will as soon as they get the chance. The one thing the article omits is a suitable definition of what “fronting” is.
I wrote about this last year. Some insurers might simply regard it as a parent insuring a car in their own name, when the car is owned, maintained, and kept by the child at a different address. It’s all nice and clean like that, isn’t it?
But as I pointed out, the borders become somewhat blurred when the child lives at the same address, or shares a parent’s car (well, it’s the parent’s car in name, but that’s part of the deception), yet uses it more than they do.
Tesco views it far more sensibly, and says if someone uses the car to get to work or college, uses it daily, or maintains it, then they must be the main driver. The other insurers who can only comment on black and white scenarios are simply playing catch-up.
In actual fact, the present article is simply a regurgitation of previous reports – this one from Zurich, for example, from last August.
A timely reminder from the DSA about driving in wet weather.
Rule 227
In wet weather, stopping distances (PDF, 125KB) will be at least double those required for stopping on dry roads. This is because your tyres have less grip on the road. In wet weather
you should keep well back from the vehicle in front. This will increase your ability to see and plan ahead
if the steering becomes unresponsive, it probably means that water is preventing the tyres from gripping the road. Ease off the accelerator and slow down gradually
the rain and spray from vehicles may make it difficult to see and be seen
be aware of the dangers of spilt diesel that will make the surface very slippery
take extra care around pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders
Not many people follow this advice, judging by the number of fire engines and ambulances I’ve seen racing around today.
An interesting American story about special needs and learner drivers. It says that young drivers with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) are between two and four times more likely to have a crash than those without the condition – which makes them more likely to crash than an adult who is legally drunk.
Researchers say that many teenagers with attention or other learning problems can become good drivers, but not easily or quickly, and that some will be better off not driving till they are older — or not at all.
It makes you wonder why they are allowed to drive at all, doesn’t it, with comments like that? And I don’t just mean American learners.
I agree with the article that inattention is an absolute major problem for this group. I’m teaching several at the moment, and the other day one of them kept looking down at the gearstick when changing up or down (something that had just cropped up on this particular lesson – he hadn’t done it before). I’d addressed it as far as I could at that point – driving at 50mph on a winding rural road – but then he did it again just as he was going into a bend. I had to bark “Dave! Mind the kerb”, to which he replied “I see what you mean” (referring to my earlier explanation of why it was important to stay alert).
The thing is, we would have hit the kerb and gone into a ditch – possibly rolling – if I hadn’t intervened. He admitted the same himself.
Imagine that (if he was a full licence holder) and did this on his own, or with friends in the car: 18 years old, rural road, on a bend, roll the car off the road, no other vehicle involved.
Does that script sound familiar? My blood runs cold at what might happen to people who can pass the test, but over whom inattention hangs as a Sword of Damocles!
American statistics suggest that ADHD affects at least 3-5% of the young population, though some studies suggest much higher figures. ADHD is apparently on the increase, and the American Society of Pediatrics says 12% of children are affected.
As that original quote suggests, those with ADHD can learn to handle it with time – sometimes. But as juveniles it is not easy to overcome.
It makes you wonder if the problem with young drivers having such a high accident rate might be something more to do with ADHD than it is to do with the instruction they received, or just their “inexperience” – as is usually trotted out. Perhaps those things exacerbate the problem, but what matters is the underlying cause and not just the easy targets.
Another email alert from the DSA concerning the trial where driving tests were conducted out of buildings other than official test centres. There isn’t a web link, so here’s the full text:
More driving test candidates to benefit from better local services
Driving test candidates across the country are set to benefit from a more convenient service as the Driving Standards Agency (DSA) extends a trial exploring a new approach to test delivery.
As well as using conventional driving test centres, the DSA has been looking at whether practical driving tests can be delivered from other venues such as local authority buildings, hotels or leisure centres.
This new approach is currently being trialled at eight locations, and following positive feedback from candidates and instructors, the DSA now plans to extend the scheme to five more areas across the country.
Road Safety Minister Mike Penning said:
“We have to be more flexible and innovative in delivering driving tests to make sure that we are offering people the best service possible wherever they live and I am delighted that these first trials have proved successful.
“We are now extending the trial so that more candidates will be able to benefit from a service that is convenient as well as being cost effective.”
The DSA plans to further develop this model and extend the scheme across areas in and surrounding: Watford, Manchester, Kettering, Glasgow and Worcester. In each area, DSA will look to identify a number of locations where there is sufficient demand for local test provision. Tests could be provided from local authority buildings, or from local businesses such as hotels or retail outlets.
As part of the longer term planning for driving test delivery, the DSA is looking for opportunities to work in partnership with the private sector across the country. Tests will still be conducted by DSA examiners, but the agency is inviting businesses who may be interested in providing premises for delivering driving tests to register their interest. A Prior Information Notice is being published in the Official Journal of the European Union and the agency hopes to attract interest from a wide section of the business community.
I think the idea of running tests from hotels and leisure centres in areas where it can be justified is fine. My only concern stems from the fact that Mike Penning championed it, and that it is therefore in danger of being the first steps on the road to privatisation.
This email alert came in via the DSA. The entire situation is down to a bunch of arseholes and a union. So just a big bunch of arseholes really. This simple fact doesn’t stop the lower primates trying to blame the DSA somehow.
I can’t really think of any publication out there (other than the Arseholes’ Union Newsletter) which would advise the public to go out and panic buy, break speed limits, queue at forecourts on purpose to cause disruption, and so on. So the DSA’s advice is:
Motorists can also help by following the following sensible advice:
don’t change your purchasing behaviour, refuel as you normally would, planning ahead if you have a long journey to go on
stick to speed limits as this helps conserve fuel
don’t queue at petrol forecourts, this causes congestion and increases disruption
check travel sites and latest news before travelling
In actual fact, this is what all the newspapers are saying, and the AA, and other motoring groups. It is the standard advice at times like these.
The only problem is that people who aren’t tanker drivers and who aren’t fully paid up members of the Arseholes’ Union are not automatically any further up the evolutionary ladder. And they WILL go out and panic buy.
My opinion is that the media should simply not publicise the Arseholes’ Union’s intentions. But since that is never going to happen, sensible advice has to be given – even if people aren’t going to follow it.
Addendum: And it transpires that the Mickey Mouse coalition – much beloved by many of the lower primates out there – actually HAS advised people to panic buy.
The Fire Service is furious, because apart from the danger to the pond life which will be storing it in plastic buckets in its kitchens and bedrooms, there is also the danger to firemen who enter burning buildings not expecting to find gallons of fuel sitting around.
There was a queue outside Morrisons in Netherfield this afternoon. All the mummies in their 4x4s taking “sensible precautions” as advised by Cameron and his gang.
Yes, the Green Brigade HAS been up in arms. Yes, there HAS been a huge increase in cycling participation and yes, the roads ARE thick with them. Yes, London DOES have some of the busiest roads in the world and yes, people who buy bikes DO go straight out without a thought either for themselves or anyone else.
I have never thought that it would be a good idea. But I have always though that it would be suicidal to let ADIs have a direct say in the outcome of a driving test other than through the normal training they provide, and doubly so if they could do it without anyone seeing what they were up to.
he Pass Plus course brief makes it clear that any training must be done 
alf an hour to get to it with most pupils. The motorway module on the course is by far the most important one for most candidates. I don’t consider it to be “inaccessible”.
I agree with the article that inattention is an absolute major problem for this group. I’m teaching several at the moment, and the other day one of them kept looking down at the gearstick when changing up or down (something that had just cropped up on this particular lesson – he hadn’t done it before). I’d addressed it as far as I could at that point – driving at 50mph on a winding rural road – but then he did it again just as he was going into a bend. I had to bark “Dave! Mind the kerb”, to which he replied “I see what you mean” (referring to my earlier explanation of why it was important to stay alert).