This joke government we have gets worse by the second. And let’s not forget that it was definitely not in pole position to start with!
Bear in mind the way it has deliberately involved itself in DSA decisions to close minuscule local driving test centres in ridiculously isolated areas (when these have to operate at a huge financial loss) and keep them running, it has now decided to close ALL regional DVLA offices – which will put around 1,200 people on the dole.
Of course, we mustn’t let the cynic in us take over and argue that shutting DVLA offices isn’t an issue when it comes to winning votes at the next elections, whereas keeping tiny rural DSA offices open (when the DSA wants to shut them) is a massive vote winner.
The closures would take place “by the end of 2013”. Right alongside the double-dip recession we’re facing. So those losing their jobs should have no trouble finding other employment!
I heard today that the go ahead has finally been given for the A453 to be widened between Nottingham and the M1 (Junction 24). Work should begin within 3 years.
Of course, the idiots in Clifton who have continually opposed it will continue to do so – of that you can be certain. This is in spite of the fact that the road section to be widened is the second most congested stretch of road in the whole country – behind only a certain section of the M25, so you can see how bad it is.
This whole fiasco has been going on for at least 20 years.
The A453 is a single carriageway road along almost its entire length. It is approximately 10 miles between Clifton and the M1, and yet from early afternoon traffic is at walking speed or less much of the time, so it can take an hour or more to get from Nottingham to the motorway. It is shocking that the whole project has taken so long to approve, and even more shocking that the idiots who opposed it have even been listened to – let alone listened to so many times. All objections should have been overruled at the outset, since the baseline issue is far more serious than the wishy-washy “it’ll divide our community” nonsense the objectors have been spouting (it’s all they have).
Almost without fail, there is a daily accident or breakdown which makes the problem a hundred times worse.
The only part of the project I don’t like is the 1,000-space car park and Park + Ride system they will build just outside Clifton. It will destroy green belt land. And the bloody tram is going up that way at some stage – everything has to make room for that useless waste of space.
This is an old story from 2011. So much for government ideas – as of 2015 the idea is no nearer coming to anything, and yet it is one of the most important changes they could make to the driving test.
I saw this in the newsfeeds today. It appears that from sometime next year, learners will be allowed on motorways as long as they are with a qualified instructor.
It won’t be compulsory to take motorway lessons (M-lessons), as many learners live too far away from one.
The story also mentions that the trainee (“pink”) licence system is going to change. This is where unqualified or trainee instructors currently teach pupils. It isn’t mentioned precisely how the change will manifest itself (although the story in the Telegraph – see link below – indicates that this will involve PDIs being actually supervised
They’re also talking about scrapping Pass Plus and replacing it with something else. Again, they don’t say what, yet (well, not in this story, anyway).
The story is also covered by MSN Cars and the Telegraph,
What is interesting is that on a certain web forum frequented by young people of “learn to drive” age, a great many of them think that M-lessons for learners are a bad idea… now that they have passed their tests and are world-renowned (in their own imagination) experts in the field of driving. They appear to hold the opinion that if your test is on a Wednesday, you are totally incapable of driving on a motorway on the Tuesday – but an expert at it come Thursday.
The attitude of some young people on that forum clearly illustrates where the real problems lie – and it ain’t due to lack of motorway tuition, of that you can be sure.
Although I mainly approve of M-lessons, I do have some reservations. The first is that having M-lessons is not going to prevent certain young people being prats, because that’s an attitude that comes with the hormones.
Another concern is the quality of the instructor. Let’s be honest about it: some instructors are not that good even now. How will they fare out on the motorway? And since the motorway is an optional lesson subject which, according to Penning, is down to the fact that many people don’t live near one, what will the cheapo instructors choose to do, faced with the prospect of having to drive more miles up one junction of a motorway on a single lesson than they normally do in all of their “10 for £50” ones? And what will those old fossils do, who only teach test routes and local driving to the more challenging learner, and who consider themselves superior to anyone under 60? Will these choose to cover motorways – or will they simply persist in blaming the DSA for everything and throw up excuses?
I doubt that the DSA information went into such minute detail (it rarely does – because it doesn’t need to), but there is a world of difference between “had to have” an interpreter and “chose to have” an interpreter. And yet The Argus bases its rant on the premise that none of these people could speak a word of English!
A few simple sums are also in order, I think. Looking at the year between April 2010 and March 2011, the Sussex test centres conducted at least 35,000 tests (not including Lancing and Brighton figures). Even if we round up “nearly” 1,000 to “actually” 1,000 interpreters on test, it still only equates to about 3%. The words “big” and “deal” spring to mind.
The Argus joins the dots in its story by claiming that they used interpreters “because they didn’t have a strong enough command of English”. How can it possibly know this?
If your first language isn’t English, there isn’t much you can do about it. You may be able to get by in normal life with a bit of arm-waving and a few laughs with your mates, but if you’ve got a driving test coming up – on which your future employment prospects might rest – given the opportunity to use an interpreter in your native tongue, you are going to take advantage of it unless you’re a complete fool. And why shouldn’t you?
Of course, the average Sussex resident – after having raised his Union Jack on his flagpole of a morning, and then gone to fetch his copy of the Daily Mail – will have made certain assumptions about the story. But he’d be wrong – the most popular languages requested appear to be Polish, Turkish, and Arabic. Gujarati, Urdu, and Hindi were way down the list.
The Argus points out that interpreters have to be supplied (and paid for) by the candidate. Obviously disappointed by this, it goes on to point out that the cost of the translation from English to various languages for the theory test questions is met by the tax payer. What it means is that the DSA pays for it, but since the DSA is a government body, WE pay for it.
All of this is being fomented by Mike Penning and his war on “politically correct” foreign language tests (this also needs translating: Penning is a Tory, and it is vital that every change be blamed on Labour, who introduced some of the things he is trying to reverse). Penning is stupidly arguing that people whose first language isn’t English are a danger on the roads purely because they don’t speak English too well.
Fortunately, intelligent life still exists somewhere – in this case, at the AA. Andrew Howard, Head of Road Safety, said:
…he did not feel drivers who didn’t speak English would pose a road safety threat.
He said: “Fundamentally road signs are designed to be symbolic and so reading ability isn’t a factor.”
He’s almost completely right. Far Eastern drivers do have a problem, though. I had a Chinese pupil a few years ago, and when she panicked she “saw things in Chinese”. On one occasion this led to her missing a 30mph sign. But for almost everyone else who uses Arabic numerals, it isn’t a problem.
So, The Argus is just stirring up racial prejudice, it would seem. Not intentionally, I’m sure.
This article appeared in today’s Daily Mail in a sort of agony column for people who think they’re middle-class investors. A woman – presumably at least middle-aged – from Surrey, writes:
I paid for my grandson to have driving lessons with the AA and feel I have been taken for a ride.
He has had 38 lessons and in that time has reversed round a corner once, has had no parking tuition and has not done an emergency stop.
It appears he spent long periods parked up talking while his instructor was having a smoke.
He changed to an independent instructor, who said his driving standard was the level of someone who had received only six lessons.
My complaint to the AA has been going on for nearly 11 months, in which time they have replied just twice.
Obviously, the most likely first reaction from many people is “tut-tut. Shocking” But it’s worth pointing out a few things.
It’s virtually impossible to prevent people from learning when you are teaching them to drive. So if this learner is only as good as someone who has had 6 lessons, the signs definitely don’t point to him being that quick out of the starting gate when it comes to driving.
On the same point, any instructor who thinks he can make such an assessment is an idiot! I can imagine this “independent” wetting his trousers when the opportunity to bad mouth a national driving school came his way.
I’ve said before that ALL (close enough to 100% for me to use the word) instructors are self-employed. It doesn’t matter if an ADI is franchised to the AA, BSM, Red, a local school, or if he’s independent. You’re as likely to get a good/bad one wherever you go. The only genuine difference between an AA instructor and an independent one is that the former will pay money to the AA to supply him with a car and pupils, whereas the independent one will supply his own car and pupils. The chances of either of them being complete pillocks is identical.
It’s worth remembering that many, many, MANY independent ADIs were once franchised to one of the national schools. In these inclement economic times, many of independents are going back to franchises. They’re all still the same people. All that changes is the rubbish they come out with depending on which way they’ve jumped.
If this instructor stopped to have a smoke in pupils’ paid time, my own opinion is that he should be struck off the register and be tarred and feathered. It’s a filthy habit, and if you’re so pathetically desperate that you can’t wait for an hour or two to have a smoke, then you’re a weak-minded prat who has no business doing this job. But that’s just me.
The old granny who writes about her beloved grandson is probably under the impression that independents don’t smoke or something stupid like that. Well, I can assure her that we’ve got one up here who does (many of instructors do, in fact). He smokes on lessons and he stinks (many do). He’s even smoked in the Colwick toilets before (several have done). It was because of him – and several others – that the manager had to put signs up, which quite clearly state that people had been doing it. When you’re sitting in the test centre, many of them have to walk down the driveway to have a smoke (and some just do it outside, in spite of the signs there).
So in a nutshell, the problem is a grandma who wants to blame her grandson’s limitations on someone else. The only issues of any relevance, though, are the instructor smoking and maybe the lack of communication from the AA.
The columnist, Tony Hazell, makes some idiotic comment about the average number of lessons – erm, Tony, an “average” has a spread BOTH sides of it. Think before you offer stupid advice to someone who is already confused.
My fastest ever (no previous experience) was 17.5 hours. My longest was in the mid hundreds (can’t remember if it was 140 or 160 now). The Golden Grandson does not appear to be sub-20 hour material, though Doting Granny obviously thinks he is.
Some of what the article attributes to her makes sense – some sort of probation, and some restrictions are definitely needed for new drivers. But it is when you get down to the nitty-gritty detail that the cracks start to appear.
For one thing, she wants to limit their access to the motorways. Why, for God’s sake? That’s not where they have their accidents.
She wants to force them to stick P plates on their cars. Big deal! I’m sure they’ll drive really carefully after they get one of those.
Davenport justifies all this after seeing “the ruin and havoc” when she was a traffic officer. It’s a shame she didn’t understand it, though. Because she then comes out with the most idiotic and misguided comment imaginable:
At the moment, people learn to drive mainly in calm residential streets when it’s light. They don’t have much experience of driving on busy A-roads or in the dark.
Yet as soon as they get a licence they can drive on motorways at speed and carry as many passengers as they like. The vast majority are responsible but some – especially young people – take risks and drive too quickly.
This is simply not true. Some new drivers might well only be taught on calm streets in the light, but it would need a lot more data for me to accept that this applies to the majority. I teach every night – nights are a popular time – and I see a lot of other instructors around, so a large number of people are actually learning in the dark. Occasionally, I get someone who can only do evenings, and I have to make sure we get a few daytime lessons in at some point.
I also take all – and I mean ALL – my pupils along a dual-carriageway stretch of the A46, explaining that it’s as close as you can get to being on a motorway without actually going on one. It’s at least 10 miles away from the nearest Nottingham test centre, so isn’t going to be on a test route.
The problem with Davenport appears to be that she is trying to do too many things at once, and problems can’t usually be solved like that. She is calling for a complete ban on alcohol for all drivers, and prosecution for those caught using handheld devices. And she is stupidly tying all this into the issue of a graduated licence, which is specifically targeted at young/new drivers.
The prospect of any form of graduated licence is likely to be impeded by someone else with idiotic views. Roads Minister Mike Penning has already said that such restrictions would “unfairly penalise” those relying on cars to get to work or college. Penning apparently thinks that letting them kill themselves instead is a much fairer solution – and a great way to avoid losing votes at the next election, no doubt.
Just for the record, new drivers are paying around £2,000 or more for their first insurance. Hasn’t anyone sussed that this is a great way of keeping them off the roads? (And before anyone says anything, any driver who chooses to drive uninsured has already demonstrated what their attitude on the road is, and they’re not going to be influenced by any form of restriction placed on them).
And also on the insurance issue, £2,000 might be a bit high, but ask any young or new driver what they would consider “payable” and they will come up with a figure that most of us took at least 10 years to get anywhere near – and mostly before they were even born. The effect of a graduated licence on insurance would not “slash premiums” to anything like the level people imagine. And if it did, it would make matters worse by encouraging more people to drive who simply don’t need to.
But back to Suzette Davenport, and her extremely confused outlook on matters. The Mail reports:
Miss Davenport wants serious consideration given to a mandatory ‘P’ scheme. She also believes that new drivers should take extra lessons in motorway driving.
She notched up six penalty points ten years ago when she was twice caught by speed cameras exceeding the 30?mph limit.
Miss Davenport is a keen cyclist, and frequently pulls over drivers who fail to give consideration to cyclists. But she also has a reputation for stopping cyclists who are not wearing helmets, have poor lights or are dressed inappropriately.
Taking each of those paragraphs in turn…
Learners should be allowed on motorways with a driving instructor if you want to address this. FULL STOP. And sticking a P on your car won’t stop you having an accident – it tends to be a bit more complex than that.
Davenport no doubt had a wonderful excuse when she got those points on her licence. It could even have been her driving instructor’s fault. But let’s face facts, here. If the Deputy Chief Constable is such a bad driver that she got speeding points – and she was still allowed to become a Traffic Cop – surely that points to the deeper malady in our society?
And the malady goes even deeper in that last paragraph. Cyclists are one of the biggest nuisances on the roads, and especially when they use the road instead of the perfectly good cycle path next to it. Roads were designed primarily for cars – not cyclists. Cycle paths, on the other hand, are designed explicitly for cyclists. Yet it would seem that Davenport relishes having a go at motorists who are confronted with these Spandex-clad morons.
Shazida Begum, who was 20 at the time, has been banned for 2 years and fined £700 for causing the accident. She escaped unharmed, but one of the lorry drivers had to spend the night in hospital. She was found guilty of dangerous driving and has been ordered to resit her driving test. There is a bit more detail in this report, too.
Reading the article, you can only wonder at the part where it says:
Witnesses at the scene found Begum crouched on the passenger seat of her damaged car talking on her mobile phone, the court heard.
I wonder why? The other puzzling thing is why on earth she isn’t required to sit an extended test. She obviously can’t drive properly, and her own defence lawyer said:
It was very poor driving that falls far below the expected standard.
The understatement of the year. And it’s also worth remembering that if anyone had been killed, she could have been looking at a 14 year jail term. It was only by luck that no onewas.
This came through on the newsfeeds – it seems that the driving equivalent of the Neighbourhood Watch (link no longer live) is trying to persuade the government to trial an 80mph limit on “a managed and controlled motorway”.
I wonder if these fossils have actually considered the implications of this trial if it were to go ahead? Like, for example, what if people were killed as a result of it? I mean, that would be a hell of a price to pay to find out, wouldn’t it?
And what if, on this “managed and controlled” trial, there were no accidents? What the hell would that prove?
The people who are members of the group in question are often those who have the least regard for statistics or factual information, preferring their own beliefs and interpretations above those of “non-experts” who aren’t from their ranks. To that end, they are incapable of understanding the simple fact that increasing the upper limit to the range of speeds people will do on a road decreases the time they will have to think about how to deal with adverse situations that arise in front of them. There is no way, using any of the known laws of science, that that will make the roads safer.
If you hadn’t already realised, I don’t have a lot of time for “advanced” motoring groups, and this idiotic proposal isn’t likely to alter that situation. They are mostly bunches of nobodies who have acquired celebrity just through their very existence, and the choice of a corporate name which implies greatness. The “advanced” nature of their membership comes primarily from their members’ ages – and the implied “experience” that brings with it. All they appear to do is try and rub the noses of non-members in the dirt.
Having said that, at least RoSPA has always been opposed to increasing the speed limit on motorways for the reasons I gave above. They also have a concern that more serious accidents will result.
Quite rightly, other groups are criticising the anoraks for bringing this up now – so soon after the M5 disaster.
Mind you, people are going to great lengths to suggest that the M5 disaster wasn’t caused by speed. I’d just point out one thing: if everyone had been driving at 30-50mph, we wouldn’t be using the word “disaster” right now. That’s those laws of science, again.
I saw this in ADI News this month. Someone has reviewed a “free booklet” which is being given away by He-Man, titled: The Use and Abuse of Dual Controls. It’s written by some guy called Professor Peter Russell.
Although the ADI News review doesn’t say, the booklet can be downloaded from He-Man’s website using the link above. He-Man, of course, is a major supplier of dual controls for instructor cars. The reviewer cleverly takes issue with some of the author’s very specific claims and statements about dual controls, whilst trying to remain objective. Reading between the lines, it is clear he doesn’t agree.
My first impression was that the author is one of those people who, like Idi Amin in the 1970s, lives for titles and certificates. Amin gave himself the title “His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular” (he wasn’t VC, DSO, or MC). The author in this case lists “Master of Arts in Advanced Driver Education (1997); Doctor of Professional Studies in CPD in Education (2001); Fellow of the Institute of Master Tutors of Driving (1969-2011); Chief Examiner AEB /AQA Diploma in Driver Education (1983-2011); Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Educational Assessors (2003-2011); Tutor of NHS Counselling, Coaching and Mentoring Degree Courses (2002-11); Member of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (1980-2011)”. It appears that he WAS teaching in the 70s, so read into that what you will.
It’s worth pointing out that some people have A levels and degrees in “Critical Thinking”, “David Beckham Studies”, “General Studies”, “Celebrity Journalism”, “Drama Combined with Waste Management”, “International Football Business Management”, and so on. A lecturer in these subjects could easily become a “professor”.
I think you can see my point, here. So, anyway…
Much of the booklet is just information and statistics. But there are some outrageous statements in there. To start with:
…each case where the examiner takes action is a terrible indictment of the skills (or otherwise) of a relatively few ADIs.
Remember that, then. If you ever get an ETA for one of your pupils, it is a “terrible indictment” on your skills (or lack, thereof) as an ADI. He even reckons that the test SHOULD be abandoned at that point (so a walkback). This is an idiotic blanket statement, and is plain nonsense except in a small number of cases.
Apparently:
Any instructor may occasionally bring a pupil on test who suffers from nerves to such an extent they cannot cope. This may happen say once or twice a year…
That girl I once taught who took five tests before coming to me, and four with me before passing, and whom we had to stop for on test day for her to be physically sick, must be another “terrible indictment” on my skills as an instructor. The real facts are that about 80-90% of pupils are absolutely shitting themselves when they take their tests, and quite how this manifests itself out there with the examiner on the day is not going to be decided by some old geezer with an ego problem.
But this part is just utter nonsense:
First of all there is an absolute need to establish two basic teaching principles:
Dual controls are not an aid to teaching; they are a safeguard, only for use when learning needs are overcome by safety considerations
Instructors who make excessive use of dual controls, are obviously not suited to the job
That first one is just complete crap. If wearing full clown make-up and big clown shoes worked as a tool for teaching people, some fossil saying you should only wear a suit and tie would not alter that fact. Exactly the same is true here.
It is an absolute and definite fact that, if using the dual controls for teaching and demonstration purposes can be beneficial, then they should be used as necessary. The author of the booklet is totally wrong to state otherwise, and is expressing an opinion only.
The second point is, again, a poorly worded and badly expressed blanket statement. If an ADI is forever using the duals to prevent imaginary problems, then I agree that overuse in that case would be a problem – though I would stop short of such idiotic statements about his or her suitability for the job without knowing a lot more personal details.
It is clear that the author has some sort of historical love affair with BSM. Apparently it was THEY who had this nonsense in their training manual in 1980. So what the author is neglecting to mention and explain (or doesn’t understand) is that all we have is BSM’s bespoke internal training manual – not a Universal Law – that dates from more than 30 years ago! You can guess where he started out, can’t you?
As an aside, he bemoans the “sale” of BSM to the AA for a nominal “£1”. So, something else he doesn’t understand, either – the fact that that “nominal” sum effectively purchased a huge number of debts and liabilities.
You can make your own mind up about the rest of it. Some of it might actually turn out to be useful for some people, seeing that it is basically a “how to be an ADI” manual from someone with very old-fashioned (30-year+) views, and who apparently hates the profession as it stands today – but some of the crass opinions expressed as fact in it make it completely unreliable as a reference manual of any sort.
I commented previously on government plans to increase the motorway speed limit to 80mph – first of all in February this year, then in September, and most recently in October.
In my first article, I made it clear that it will not shorten journey times – the main argument from the government for doing it. All it will do is make people arrive at the next bottle-neck quicker, with the associated increased accident risk that will create. I stressed this in the second article. And the third was based on some extra evidence derived form the very people most at risk: young or new drivers.
Car freaks (many of whom are ADIs) and people who think they’re a whole lot better drivers than they actually are are drooling at the prospect. In that third article, I wrote:
One of my pupils asked me for my thoughts on it today. I told him that I don’t have any issues with an increase in speed limits from my own perspective – but I have a major concern when it comes to trusting other drivers to handle it properly.
You can maybe guess where this is heading. I doubt that many people in the UK are unaware of the events on the M5 Motorway over the weekend. Unsurprisingly, it has reopened (was it ever closed?) the debate over plans to increase speed limits.
Now, we don’t know what speed those cars and lorries involved were doing, but the severity of the outcome suggests they weren’t going at 30mph!
Let’s assume for a moment that at least some of them were breaking the current limit, and some were driving somewhat shy of that due to the alleged poor visibility. The outcome was total carnage.
Now imagine an upper limit of 80mph. What difference would there have been in the outcome? At best, absolutely none – it would have been identical. But at worst, some of those involved would have crashed at a higher speed than they are allowed to travel at legally at present.
Those going at the slowest speeds would have been doing so no matter what the upper limit was set at. So raising the limit would have added 10mph to the speed the crashes occurred at, and as I said in a previous article, the relative speeds of the cars involved in a collision are the seed for an accident, but the absolute speeds involved dictate the severity of the outcome once the vehicles are at rest (and the mass of the vehicles involved also comes into it, as well).
In other words, if two cars touch each other when one is going 5mph faster than another, the initial contact damage is slight. But if they are going at 70mph and 75mph respectively, loss of control is likely, and the outcome is unimaginably more dramatic than it would be if you merely clipped the wing mirror of a stationary car at 5mph – the same relative speed difference.
In spite of what some anorak advanced driving groups are claiming, speed DOES kill. Losing control at 80mph is definitely going to be worse than losing it at 70mph – and even 70mph is bad enough.
Of course, the M5 case is rather unique and spectacular, but the solution is still to enforce speed limits and prosecute offenders – not to raise the limit so they aren’t offending anymore.
