Category - News

Darwin Awards 2011: Competition Hots Up Further

I mentioned the 2011 Darwin Awards earlier this year. But we have a new contender in the form of Robert Mark Owens , a surprisingly 48-year old motorcyclist.

Throw the Book

He filmed himself driving at up to 150mph on his Kawasaki 600cc bike. He was also filmed doing wheelies, riding on footpaths, and weaving through traffic – presumably at speed.

Owens’ place in the Darwin Awards 2011 nominations list was secured when he then uploaded the footage to YouTube.

Someone saw it and reported him anonymously to the police. The story doesn’t say precisely how they identified him, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he put his stupid face on the video in his quest for glory.

Owens was given 10 points, disqualified for 5 years, ordered to take an extended test, do 150 hours of unpaid work, had his bike (£3,000) and camera (£150) confiscated, and given a 51-week prison sentence (suspended for two years). In other words, he had the book thrown at him. So when I called him a “motorcyclist” earlier, I should perhaps have said “ex-motorcyclist”.

Serves the idiot right, anyway. The courts should be this harsh on anyone who breaks the law anything like this – and someone stupid enough to broadcast their stupidity shouldn’t be allowed to drive again. Ever.

The trouble is, the courts aren’t this harsh most of the time.

Superheroine..? Or Just a Stupid Idiot?

A reader sent me this link to a story which beggars belief. I suppose the fact that it’s a lovey-dovey, brains-turned-to-mush mummies website has a lot to do with it.

Emma French, 20, from Bathgate in Scotland, had her driving test booked. She’s been waiting for it “since August”. The article spouts:

…[she] had four contractions whilst taking her test…

She kept mum about her contractions to both the examiner and her instructor as she got behind the wheel – despite her partner… brother… mum… all urging her to cancel and go to hospital.

After she passed, the first thing she did was was drive to her grandparents to tell them, and only then went to hospital. She thinks it will be a great story to tell her child when she’s older.

The article concludes:

Brave lady!

I can only assume that that’s some sort of dialect for “stupid cow” or “unfit mother”, because absolutely the last thing she is is brave.

She endangered the life of her unborn child. She endangered her own life. And she endangered the life of her driving examiner. It’s quite likely she also endangered the life of her instructor if labour started during her pre-test lesson, and you can only guess at what a danger she would have been to everyone else on the road had she lost control!

And it would have taken legions of feminists and other politically-correct idiots to persuade the insurance company that her insurance was valid in the event of any accident, because getting behind the wheel in that state is sheer stupidity.

You often see these PC clowns arguing that pregnancy is “not an illness”. Let me just clarify a few things:

  • in the later stages of pregnancy some women’s brains turn to mush and they simply cannot drive safely
  • sometimes they physically cannot get behind the wheel in such a way as to be able to control the car
  • some of them refuse to do the emergency stop on lessons

Those are absolute facts. I’ve taught such people (and those first two are THEIR words, not mine). When it gets like that, pregnancy is much worse than an illness, and it needs all the legal muscle of the equal rights activists to prevent common sense having any say in the matter.

I wonder if this “heroic woman” would do it again when she has her inevitable 2nd and 3rd children? I wonder if she’d do it with her other kids in the car then the time comes? We’ve already established that she probably would, since she has an arrogant (or is it just a clueless?) disregard for anyone else. Another version of the story makes it absolutely clear that she was in labour even before she met her instructor that morning, and that the baby was a month early. Absolutely selfish.

Talk about starting as you mean to carry on.

North-American Roundabouts

North America has not previously been known for its roundabouts (used as road junctions). As recently as 2006, it was clear that there weren’t many (if any, prior to the story) in the USA – but that they were being introduced and tried out.

Canadian Roundabout - Canadian highway code

The Americans appear to be taking them very seriously, because you certainly don’t get sites like this about UK roundabouts (dead link removed).

Even just under a year ago, there were reports that roundabouts were proliferating and drivers were “confused” – though I sense a certain amount of patronising going on there, as Autoblog appears to have chosen to ignore the fact that anyone will be confused by anything new (drivers in the UK can take more than 15 years to stop treating a road the way it USED to be laid out after it changes). However, in Maryland alone there were nearly 200 roundabouts according to that report, which is probably more than there were in the entire US only 10 years earlier.

In July this year, the BBC did a story about the “British roundabout conquering the US“. I’m not sure you could call them “British” roundabouts – at the very least, you go round the American ones the other way, so it would be better to call them after another country that uses them AND drives on the right-hand side of the road (but that’s not paternal enough for the Beeb). The story says that around 3,000 have been built in the last 20 years – and it also points out that some states consider them to be “undesirable European imports”, likely to put up taxes and increase accidents. Ironically for those states, the BBC story refers specifically to the Californian town of Carmel, where their purpose has been to remove traffic lights and their associated running costs, and to cut pollution.

I like the quote from a correspondent in the Wall Street Journal:

This is a culture predicated on freedom and individualism, where spontaneous co-operation is difficult and regimentation is resisted.

You see it in the way Americans get in line, or as the Brits say, queue. We don’t do that very well.

Behind the wheel, we’re less likely to abide by an orderly pattern of merging that, though faster for the group, may require an individual to slow down or, God forbid, yield.

[Americans tend to be orthogonal in their thinking and behaviour.]

We like right angles, yes and no answers, Manichean explanations. Roundabouts require more subtlety than we’re used to.

My answer would be that assuming there’s nothing wrong with you at a genetic level, live with it. It’ll do you good.

But the main reason I wrote this was that a news item just came through about local driving schools in Ontario, Canada having just started to include them on their lessons now that more are appearing over there (dead link removed).

Police and planners say that they are proven to reduce accidents and cut pollution (the American states touting that nonsense I mentioned above should take note). But there are still problems:

…but North Americans are still trying to understand them. So the Windsor Police held an information session Monday at the new Erie and Parent roundabout to teach drivers the proper way of entering and exiting.

I didn’t realise that Canada didn’t use them or have many until I saw this. They’re now covered in the Canadian equivalent of our Highway Code (dead link removed).

New Standards for Driver and Rider Trainers

An email alert from the DSA states that a new framework setting out the key competencies expected of driver and rider trainers (instructors) has been published. Translated into English, that means someone has written down what is expected of driving and riding instructors.

The document covers pre- and post-test training.

Although I’m sure it will get the fishwives going, the document merely states the obvious and any ADI who is doing their job properly WILL already comply with virtually everything in it.

The big question though, is: how will the DSA know that you comply with it? And will they agree that you do?

I have only one issue with it. When I’m reading it I keep getting flashbacks to my time in the Rat Race, working for a company whose primary output was this sort of stuff, and which didn’t give a damn about the actual customer in spite of all the rhetoric. Examples?

…use ‘client-centred’ techniques to ensure the learner is better equipped to deal with such hazards in the future…

The Health and Safety Executive notes that:

“People who deal directly with the public may face aggressive or violent behaviour. They may be sworn at, threatened or even attacked.”

This unit is about taking steps to protect yourself, and learners, from aggressive or violent behaviour, whether from other learners or third parties…

…implement and comply with general health and safety procedures and requirements relating to the delivery of services to the public…

…report details of any situation in which an actual or potential health and safety risk arises, in line with your organisation’s policy and procedures…

It’s full of this stuff, and words like “evaluate”, “compliance”, and so on.

To be honest, it is probably going to end up being just a waste of time and effort, because there’s no way I can see that they can check all this – other than on a check test – without spending a shed load more money. More importantly, though, it will not trap people who are giving dangerous instruction.

Dangerous Drivers’ School: Episode 2

Well, although the programme is definitely entertaining, you’ve got to come to the conclusion that it is totally unrealistic and highly staged. Two shows in and a pattern is developing in Channel 5’s Dangerous Drivers’ School.

First of all, you have “Steph”. Her father is a driving instructor (yes, you read that right – and she’s appearing on TV being “trained” by AA instructors). If he can’t fix her serious attitude problem, what chance does a third party have in a single session? And it comes as no surprise to see that she fancies herself like all get out, and her dream car is an Audi that can do 0-60mph in just over 4 seconds. She’s typical Audi material, and chav through and through. Big surprise that the single session “fixed” her.

Like Lewis last week, Harry is a complete tosser. He is filmed driving at speed for long distances eating McDonalds without his hands on the steering wheel, and using the phone (at the same time as all that). Even on his first session with the instructor, he is eating crisps and taking his hands off the wheel (just for the record, I would have stopped that before it happened – no one is getting food grease on MY steering wheel!).

Pat is the regulation realistic (almost) one – though someone who can’t drive properly and wants to appear on TV about it is obviously going to be carrying just that little bit of extra baggage.

With the way Harry the Prat was driving (and “Steph”, come to that), Channel 5 should have informed the police instead of trying to cash in on something that puts the lives of others at such great risk. It’s an absolute joke that Channel 5 should aid and abet such criminal behaviour – and since they can’t be, then the whole thing has just got to be a put on show.

Increasingly, the programme is looking like a stage for people who didn’t get on Big Brother. If anyone does drive like that in real life they deserve to have their licences revoked because of past behaviour.

If anyone is genuinely like Pat, all they have to do is call an instructor and get some refresher lessons. No need to join Equity to do it.

Oswaldtwistle Danger Driver to Appear on Channel 5 Show

Channel 5’s new series, Dangerous Drivers’ School, is attracting a lot of traffic. Even local rags are using it to get publicity – like The Citizen.

It reports that John Thompson from Oswaldtwistle (it’s near Accrington in Lancashire) is to appear on the show. Let me just correct The Citizen for a moment – Thompson has ALREADY appeared on the show, it just hasn’t been aired yet. If he’s learnt anything, he should be demonstrating it now.

Thompson, who is 35, is described as “speed-loving” with a need to “grow up”. It was his wife’s idea – not his – that he appear on the show.

Thompson boasts:

It was the wife’s decision really. I was speeding quite a lot – on the motorway, I would go up to 90 or 110mph…

…I’m a courier driver and I had gotten into some bad habits…

Mmmmm. You don’t need to appear on a TV show to miraculously learn the law. The article quotes the AA instructor who was involved, but it doesn’t say anything about Thompson having changed his attitude.

It’s ironic really that that last blog story was about some idiot trying to complete a 70-mile journey in less than an hour, and this one involves a courier driver who has to get things from one place to another as quickly as possible (I see courier vans most of the day so I know exactly what goes on).

Worth reading the comments at the end of the report, too. Seems like a few people out there have the true measure of it.

Lincolnshire Learner in Fatal Accident

An incredible story, this one, from This is Lincolnshire.

Piotr Koch was a learner who had only had six driving lessons. He agreed to drive Diana Priede and her boyfriend from Boston to East Midlands Airport after her arranged driver let her down – a distance of 70 miles.

He had an hour in which to complete the journey.

If you wrote this as a script for a disaster movie or Casualty episode it would get thrown out for being too repetitive or unoriginal. You can guess what happened next.

Koch’s satnav shows that he was exceeding the speed limit for the whole of the 50% of the journey he had so far completed, and was averaging 80mph. At this point, Koch veered off the road on a bend, overreacted and spun across the road into a tree on the other side, and then rolled the car. Priede was killed and her boyfriend seriously injured. It doesn’t say what injuries Koch suffered.

Koch was driving on a provisional licence, had no insurance, no L plates, and was unsupervised. He had been stopped twice by police in the previous month for driving without a licence (for which he was fined each time).

He was jailed for three years and banned for six (I guess it was “only” three years because he admitted guilt).

I don’t want to sound unsympathetic – but I’m going to anyway. Diana Priede and her boyfriend are almost as guilty some ways (if they knew Koch was not fully licensed, of course). It is her attitude towards this sort of thing that makes people like Koch think that what they do is all right. Koch’s arrogance and stupidity are merely symptoms of the real problem.

Tragic, of course, but let’s not keep getting tied up with technical guilt. The real malady is much deeper than that, and although Koch might be technically guilty, anyone prepared to benefit from his lawbreaking must share some of the blame.

BBC’s The One Show on Tyres

You can catch it on iPlayer for the usual limited time. The One Show on BBC One tonight had a segment about driving on bald tyres. It starts at 2½ minutes in.

The programme says that around 60% of cars seen by garages (well, one in Northampton, so it’s reasonable to extrapolate a little) have at least one defective tyre. The claim is made that people are leaving it longer before replacing tyres due to the adverse economy we’re currently experiencing.

There’s nothing wrong with the segment overall, but it makes the highly misleading and erroneous claim that if your tyres fail the “20p test” they are illegal. I mentioned this test in several recent posts (for example here, and then again here. Oh, and here).

The One Show is absolutely wrong about this.

The legal minimum tread depth is 1.6mm across the middle ¾ of the tyre and all around the edge. The Highway Code confirms this:

Tyres. Tyres MUST be correctly inflated to the vehicle manufacturer’s specification for the load being carried. Always refer to the vehicle’s handbook or data. Tyres should also be free from certain cuts and other defects.

Cars, light vans and light trailers MUST have a tread depth of at least 1.6 mm across the central three-quarters of the breadth of the tread and around the entire circumference.

Motorcycles, large vehicles and passenger-carrying vehicles MUST have a tread depth of at least 1 mm across three-quarters of the breadth of the tread and in a continuous band around the entire circumference.

Mopeds should have visible tread.

Be aware that some vehicle defects can attract penalty points.

Indirectly, this is all the fault of the Cumbria Police and the media morons who reported their blitz on dangerous tyres ahead of this winter (that first article I wrote which mentioned the “20p test”). The rim on a 20p is about 2.5mm wide, and Cumbria Police were obviously using this as an overkill method of warning people who drive in the harsh Cumbrian winters on the tricky Cumbrian roads about the risks they were taking as their tyres wore lower and lower (driving in Cumbria in winter is not quite the same as driving in London or any other city during the same season).

To measure 1.6mm you can use the row of dots on a 10p piece (or buy a proper tool from Halfords for a couple of quid).

The One Show goes on to suggest that a tyre failing the “20p test” is dangerous – even saying that anything less than 3mm is illegal, and carrying out an unscientific test to prove their incorrect ideas.

Yes, we know that the lower the tread, the longer the stopping distance, but the fact remains that 1.6mm is still the legal minimum – not 3mm, as the BBC is falsely claiming. And although garages might refuse to MoT a car with less than 3mm of tread on its tyres, that’s not the same as them being illegal.

EDIT: This article is already attracting a lot of hits. A reader has commented that the car with the “dodgy tyres” doesn’t skid into the boxes – it rolls into them. This suggests that the test was perhaps rigged to give more dramatic results.

Obviously, we only have The One Show’s word that the tyres were at the tread depth the woman’s car had. Speculation, of course, but it makes you think.

Of course, the stopping distance is best with new tyres. But it gets greater with ANY amount of wear. The question is: at what point does it become dangerous? The law says below 1.6mm, and not 3mm.

Women Spend More on Driving Lessons

This is an old post.

A very confusing news release from the Press Association says that women take more lessons to pass their tests than men [link dead].

In itself, that is no big deal, but the article goes on to say that women take “an average of 22 driving lessons compared with a figure of 16 for men”. It doesn’t define a “driving lesson” (i.e. how long are these lessons?) And it then goes on to confuse the situation even more by saying that 20% or men and 10% of women don’t take lessons from an instructor.

I teach people as quickly and efficiently as I can, and I can assure you that the average number of hours is not 16 or 22 for men and women, respectively. My fastest ever learner (female) did it in 17.5 hours, and I’ve had a few (male and female) manage it in between 23 and 29 hours, but most take 30+ hours. So I can only assume that the “lessons” referred to are 2 hour ones.

The whole story is based on a survey by Co-operative Insurance (at least it doesn’t pretend to be “research” this time – that’s what these things are usually sold as). A Co-op spokesman says:

Our findings show that men tend to need less practice before passing their test, although this doesn’t necessarily make them the better drivers.

In fact, because women tend to take more time learning to drive they are likely to have built up more experience of the road before they pass their test.

This generalisation is highly misleading, since some women pass quicker than some men, and many people – male and female – are still rubbish drivers, even after 100 hours of lessons, because that’s how they choose to behave. In addition, what people say about themselves (and their driving) is hardly something that should be taken as gospel.

The only widespread source of data for how many lessons people took is the people themselves!

And the Co-op results are similar to these done by confused.com a couple of years ago, although the angle is different.