An email alert from the DSA reports on a new THINK! campaign aimed at making children, well… think before crossing the road.
The campaign cost £700,000 (it uses those animations with ugly characters, like the Lloyds Bank ads) and will be run on TV and in cinemas. It’s aimed at 6-11 year olds and “spells out the dangers of not taking care on the roads”. It emphasises the importance of crossing safely and making sure you can be seen when you’re out in the dark.
Is it just me who thinks that the real problem is being totally ignored, and actually used as a tool to make matters even worse?
Although there are reasons why 6-11 year olds would be out after dark (i.e. on their way home from school in winter), there is no mention of the fact that most of them will still be out after 9pm – indeed, out until the local off licence or chip shop closes and there’s nowhere else to stand smoking, spitting, and swearing whilst blocking the door with their BMX bikes or attempts to skateboard.
And what self-respecting hoodie is going to wear anything other than a filthy black or grey top with baggy black trousers. How many BMX bikes even have a location for a light, let alone have one fitted?
And how can you expect any 6-11 year old to know any better when their parents – little more than children themselves in many cases – behave in exactly the same way?
The problem is the parents – it is they who should be receiving the education, not the kids.
I’d also point out to Mike Penning that, in spite of his best rhetoric, it isn’t anything new. Over the years we’ve had dozens of them – all of them worked – and once upon a time 100,000 children or more took a cycling proficiency test. These days, they just inherit a frontal lobotomy from their parents.
NOTE: This post is from 2011. A new series began in 2013.
Well, I watched the first episode and it was reasonably interesting. You can watch the programme on Channel 5’s website (presumably for a limited time, so get it while it’s hot!)
It was touching to see Sarah get over her fear of motorways, and great to see the other woman gain confidence. But Lewis was typical of the problem on the roads today as far as many young male drivers is concerned. Still, at least he will have the comfort of knowing that he appeared on TV and initially came across as a prat – and left it looking an even bigger one.
The same might be said of a few other people. You see, his instructor said on the show that she couldn’t believe he had a licence after seeing him drive for the first time. It was obvious what she meant. But not to some people. Here’s a typical – and wholly expected – comment:
Does this imply that the ADI did not check his licence before starting the session?
The rest of the series looks interesting. Next episode looks like featuring a racerboy who eats, drinks, and uses his mobile phone at the same time whilst driving at speed without touching the wheel with his hands, and with his girlfriend in the car. Lewis the prat didn’t seem to mind driving hands-free, either.
Surprisingly, the morning after, there are actually some sensible comments being put up on the forums. You still get the one or two complete tossers (absolutely no better than Lewis, but in their own field) who insist on trying to find fault with either the female ADI who was featured, or the driving school involved – but these people usually have a track record of this sort of thing (i.e. franchise-haters, cheap-lesson haters, not even qualified ADIs, and so on).
Well, it’s about individuals with poor driving skills taking lessons to bring them up to scratch – but the people who find this blog looking for info about the show won’t be interested in that sort of minor detail. It involves driving instructors, and that’s enough.
Starting on Wednesday, 19th October, the Channel 5 series is called Dangerous Drivers’ School, and on its web page it says that “three experienced driving instructors buckle up with a collection of dangerous drivers”.
In the first episode, a pretty boy club promoter is the subject under scrutiny… or is he?
What Channel 5’s site doesn’t say is that the instructors involved in delivering the training are all from the AA, and this automatically puts them at a huge disadvantage as far as any other ADI watching the show is concerned. But it would have been the same wherever the instructors were from – any large national driving school, or independent is grist for the “professional” ADI’s mill.
You see, it is one of the requirements of being a “professional” driving instructor that you find fault with all other instructors – especially if they’re from a national driving school, even one of the reputable ones. Of course, it is also a requirement of being a “professional” ADI that you firmly believe and proselytize the belief that there are no reputable national schools out there. A third “professional” requirement is that you make badly worded, confusing innuendoes (masquerading as wit) whenever an opportunity like this arises. This occasion is no exception:
…Yep………………..I shall advise all my friends to go to the AA for free and not use my expert services for which they would have to pay…
…How can independants [sic] thrive when the big companies have a hold of the market…>
…I wonder how many non AA instructors will ask for a free lesson from the experts..!
…I am sure that AA instructors would be glad and happy to help these poor souls…
And this is before the first episode is aired. Ironically, some of those comments are from people who either used a franchise to get them to where they are today, or who are still with one (albeit, not the AA).
The AA has some more information on its own website. It apparently runs a course designed for inexperienced drivers (not learners) – this course has been available for several years (I remember that it caused a stir among the unwashed masses when it was launched), and is not new. Nowadays, it appears to be free through the AA Charitable Trust according to that website (I’m not sure what restrictions might apply, though).
But you see, any driving school out there could offer something similar if it wanted to. In fact, with so many of them offering stupid lesson prices and slitting their own throats into the bargain, you sometimes wonder why they don’t anyway. Admittedly, Channel 5 isn’t likely to be sniffing around trying to make expensive TV shows involving “Binkie’s School of Motoring” in the Scottish Highlands (I made that up). So names like the AA, BSM, and so on are automatically at an advantage.
But forfeiting any advantage from the corporate name is the free choice an ADI makes when he or she decides to go independent. You can’t go solo and take the name with you, no matter how nice it would be to do so.
Certainly, knowing how other ADIs think, you wouldn’t catch me appearing on TV doing my job (not that Channel 5 or anyone else would want me to, of course). It would be the equivalent of leaping out of a World War I trench in broad daylight on your own, wearing fluorescent green clothes, and making a lot of noise as you rushed the enemy line. Bloody stupid!
And I can’t wait to see how this develops once the show is aired and those who haven’t yet realised it’s the AA involved suddenly wise up.
As for the show, I’ll watch it – but I’m always sceptical about these things. Why? Well, if I were a crap driver, would I really want to be on TV telling everyone about it? Would I – in the process – think it wise to admit to breaking the law or endangering others?
On the other hand, if I were a complete prat with an ego problem, anxious to be on TV, would I ignore all that and leap at the chance? The answer is quite clear on that one.
That’s why I’m sceptical. The programme is quite possibly more about the complex personal issues of the people appearing, not about getting better at driving.
EDIT 22/3/2012: I understand that a new series is in the pipeline – sounds like it will be shown later this year.
Another DSA alert says that the biggest review of road signs in 40 years will reduce clutter and red tape in Whitehall.
The review will mean that the infinite spiral which in turn means that a sign has to be put up to warn of another sign, etc. will be removed. Well, in theory, that is. I doubt that most of us will see any change – unless it be still more clutter.
Anyone who drives regularly will know that more time and effort is spent installing and signing 10 metres of cycle path than is used keeping trees and shrubs from obscuring existing signs for motorists (and that’s just one example of the bias). Well, this new “framework” mentions:
measures to improve cycle journeys by allowing journey times as well as distances to be added to signs on cycle routes and making it easier for councils to use Trixi mirrors to improve visibility of cyclists at junctions and ‘ no entry except cycles’ signs to allow contra-flow cycling
a new sign warning lorry drivers that a road is unsuitable for their vehicles. This will help to prevent situations where lorries following sat nav systems use inappropriate roads, sometimes causing disruption to the local road network and delays to their journey
allowing councils to use innovative new measures such as pedestrian countdown timers and diagonal crossings without government approval
If someone can tell me how all that points to fewer signs instead of more, I’d like to hear from them.
It looks to me that it is simply one form of bureaucracy (with the usual stifling green overtones) taking over from another.
An alert from the DSA, but also covered by the media in general, reports that dangerous drivers who cause serious injury could face longer jail sentences.
A new offence – causing serious injury by dangerous driving – will attract a sentence of up to five years imprisonment. At the moment, the most a judge can give is two years, unless the offence results in death, in which case the maximum is 14 years. This new offence fills the very large gap that has been a get-out clause for many a boy or girl racer for a good few years now.
Of course, we mustn’t forget that it isn’t just young people who destroy peoples’ lives by driving dangerously.
On the other hand, we also mustn’t forget that driving like a prat is still detestable, even if it doesn’t result in injury.
Fleet News reports that court convictions for driving on illegal tyres is at its highest for 4 years, according to information released by The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office.
Refreshingly, Fleet News also reports the correct legal specification for tyres on cars, and not something it has misunderstood from somewhere else, like many insurers and media sources have been doing recently since Cumbria police mentioned the “20p test”.
Apparently, there were almost 10,500 convictions in 2010. The rise is attributed to the recession, and people avoiding having to make the necessary expensive replacement. After all, let’s face facts here. In many cases, even the cheapest replacement tyres will be of greater value than the car they’re fitted to.
Of course, safety on the roads isn’t a game, or a chore to be avoided – though with recent stories involving deaths by dangerous driving, it is clear that some members of our society think otherwise. If you can’t drive on legal tyres, then you can’t drive. Period.
Monkey see, monkey do. It seems that Google’s self-driving car has spawned a whole raft of copycat projects, all claiming to be better than the rest.
Now, Oxford University is anxious to spend some sponsorship money and make ridiculous claims and predictions that are unlikely to come to fruition. It has developed a self-driving car which is apparently better than every other self-drive car ever conceived, because “it relies heavily on an on-board 3D street map, instead of many sensors”.
Actually, the Google car – you know, Google: the people who do Google Earth and all that stuff – does make use of the “cloud” a little. So a bit of an inflated claim here, I think.
But anyway, big deal. And let’s hope the “street map” can cope with sudden closures and temporary roadworks to stop the thing barging into situations it doesn’t know about (oh, I bet it has sensors to fall back on then).
The leader of the project claims that it could lead to an “arms race” amongst car manufacturers:
You can imagine one company advertising a model of car which, on average, drives itself for 10 minutes a day and then another manufacturer will come out with one that does 15 minutes.
I think he should stay off the caffeine or brightly coloured soft drinks for a while.
Although I’m not necessarily in agreement with it, there is evidence to suggest that over-reliance on technology and safety features leads to lack of caution on the roads – a recent story about blind-spot accidents and the new annual saga of being warned to fit winter tyres (with people believing that you can do anything you want once you have them fitted) being just two examples. Why anyone would want to sit in a vehicle you don’t have to touch (also known as “a bus” – and I’m joking) is beyond me.
A teenage dickhead – Michael Partington, 19 – was doing speeds of around 70mph in a 20mph zone. He lost control of the car, smashed into a tree, and killed a 14-year old girl in the process.
Before I continue, let’s just look at that again:
19 years old
had several passengers in the car
was driving at speeds up to 70mph in a 20mph zone
lost control
early hours of the morning
killed a 14-year old girl
she was his front-seat passenger
How long will it take for people to realise that this is a script that’s being followed, time and time again. At least 90% of young male drivers are genetically programmed to behave like prats when they pass their test and drive with their mates in the car (this rises to over 99% when you focus on certain areas of the country). It’s only by chance that more people like Annie Cochrane don’t end up on the casualty list – but in any case, even ONE such incident is more than enough.
There’s a lot to be said about the environments involved in these cases – this happened in Wigan, and you can’t help but also wonder what a 14-year old girl was doing out “in the early hours” with a moron like this. You might argue that this is irrelevant. Well, if you take the shortsighted view that the only issue here is what Partington was doing, you might be right. But if you look wider at the trend and predictability of this sort of thing, you really do have to start asking when society is going to realise it is really badly screwed up – and especially so in certain places.
Anyway, the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is 14 years in prison. When you think of what Partington did, and how he was deliberately driving (no doubt, to show off and burn off some testosterone), you can’t really see anything which might result in anything less than the maximum sentence. But he pleaded guilty, so that could knock a good few years off it.
Society really is a mess.
Oh, and the Judge hasn’t decided “on the length of the [driving] ban” he has issued while Partington is out on bail. It should be lifetime.
The article says that the number of crashes involving lane changing on motorways is increasing – up a half over the last two years. It calls this kind of incident (not just on motorways, I assume) a “blind-spot accident”.
The organisation which did the research says that most accidents occur when moving from the right to the left (e.g. cutting in after overtaking).
I suppose my immediate response has to be why this is such a surprise? The way people drive is hardly conducive to not having accidents. In fact, something which is increasingly getting on my nerves when I’m out on lessons is when the car just behind you on the dual carriageway is doing 2mph over the speed limit to get past you, and then cuts into the perfect gap your pupil has left between themselves and the car in front. It’s got to the point where I say to mine “just watch this. He’s going to cut in”. And they do.
Before I go any further, let me just offer some quotations from a forum frequented by learners. These are from a topic called “Stupid things taught for the test”, and all spelling is as it appears in the forum:
[the first reply]…you definitely do not need to check you main mirror as much as they tell you to…
…The ridiculous usage of the parking brake. I mean who the **** uses a parking brake when you are doing a 3-point turn….
… Also, parallel parking can be avoided in everyday life, and you don’t to mirror check every 3 seconds…
…Push/Pull steering….
…Overuse of the handbrake. Useful if you are in a manual car on a hill, but you don’t need to apply it as often as you are told…
…Stall routine. No need to go the long way about it like you do as a learner….
…dont indicate round parked cars, dont turn the wheel when stationary [i.e. you SHOULD do these things]…
…I didn’t use my handbrake once on my test apart from parking right at the end… is it usually necessary in a test..? My instructor said technically I should but never really enforced it…
…The hazard perception test…
…I never use my handbrake, even on a hill… I never put the car in neutral… I never do that stupid awkward steering thing where you pass the wheel from hand to hand… That’s downright dangerous… I rarely drive with two hands on the wheel… I frequently go 5th -> 2nd.
…slowing down for the corner about 4 years in advance…
…All you have to do is pass the test. After that you’re chilling…
…I never use any of my external mirrors in my car, but that’s because all three are useless except for one of the offside ones – which is brilliant for pulling out onto the road from a parallel park. Interior mirror is wonderfully useful, but that’s about it, so I tend to turn my head to look instead if it’s anything I can’t see out of my rear windscreen…
…My car cruises at at 50mph on the motorway, I won’t be overtaking anybody. For other lane changes like roundabouts and junctions, I get by perfectly well (and have done for a year with no near misses or anything like that) by turning my head… I can see perfectly well what’s going on behind me through my rear view mirror…
…Oh and as other people have said, checking your mirror, you don’t need to do it as much in ‘real life’ but it’s good to get into the habit for the test…
Is it any wonder that driving standards are so poor out there? These are mostly recently passed drivers (with a few know-it-all petrol heads with relatively vast experience covering a few months or years). It’s also worrying some of the crap some of them have apparently been taught, such as check the mirrors every 3 or 5 seconds – that’s bound to give the wrong message, isn’t it?
This is just one discussion thread, but there are many others. They just don’t think mirrors or other safety-related skills are important.
The Autoblog article mentions the usual mitigating circumstances designed to deflect blame from its obvious target – cars are safer, door pillars bigger, the EU, etc. That’s bollocks.
It’s down to one thing, and one thing only: crap driving.
As an aside (well, it is related), a few months ago one of my pupils failed her test. She’s since passed, but this failure was for one thing only. She’s come to a give way line on an angled road, with traffic coming only from the left. The problem was, she’s turned the steering wheel so much that her angle was even more acute than usual, and as a result she couldn’t see traffic coming from the right for the examiner, the passenger seat, the door pillar, and so on.
How did she deal with it? She decided to just go and hope for the best.
The examiner quite rightly didn’t share her opinion and used the duals (there was someone coming), and yet to this day she maintains that it was the only thing she could have done, and that the examiner was being an arse. We had some major arguments about it in her subsequent lessons – there was no way I was going to give her an inch on such a stupid outlook. She couldn’t (and still cannot) see how she shouldn’t have got herself in that position to start with, and having done so should have asked the examiner to move his head or something until she could see.
Most worryingly, her reason for learning to drive was to be able to drive her kids to and from school.
I see the same behaviour daily. Just today on a lesson, my pupil was going ahead at a roundabout in the left lane (near Morrissons in Netherfield) then to turn left at the lights 50m further on. A woman in a silver Mercedes A160 (reg. no. FG61 CCN) got in the right lane and cut in to the left one the roundabout in front of us. It was deliberate and calculated. Even worse, she had a Baby on Board sticker in the back, so presumably her brat was in there with her. She knew she’d done it, because after she’d successfully read my lips she then spent the next 30 seconds trying to avoid making eye contact. Mind you, the fact that she used this time to peel a banana, and then break the 40mph speed limit on the Colwick Loop Road may also have had something to do with it.
Nicola Bentley-Lovell made a claim of constructive dismissal against the DSA. She’d worked as an examiner for seven years up until October 2010 but resigned after she allegedly had to take a lot of “bullying and harassment” over her pass rate.
She said that over a six-year period she underwent 165 internal check tests (the normal check rate in that period would have been a maximum of around 50 per examiner).
She claims that her managers “urged her to increase her pass rate” as it was below “acceptable variance”.
You can read the full story in that link – it is bulked out with a variety of claims that are not directly connected with the issue of variance.
At this point, the forums lit up with the usual crowd of fossils and know-it-alls – idiotic claims about people always failing tests on a Friday, accusations that they get cash bonuses for meeting targets, and so on. Hard to believe many of these people can get away with calling themselves “professionals”.
What is clear is that a lot of people – examiners like these two, and plenty of ADIs who persist in their archaic careers solely to hate the DSA – do not have a clue what variances actually are.
If you toss a coin, it is 50:50 whether it will be heads or tails. In theory, if you toss it a hundred times, you should get 50 heads and 50 tails. In reality, you might get 45 heads and 55 tails – or the other way round… or anywhere in between. Or even a bit different.
What you won’t get is 80 heads and 20 tails. And even if you did, you wouldn’t get the same again, and you certainly wouldn’t get it if you upped the tosses to 1,000 or 10,000.
The same is true of examiners. No matter what happens, in theory only a certain percentage of test candidates will pass, and it is not 100% of them. So if you have on perfect examiner conducting all tests, you would end up with a pass rate somewhere around 40%. That’s just the way it is – that 40% is the equivalent of the 50:50 of coin tossing.
Arguably, if all ADIs were perfect and taught to a perfect standard, and this one perfect examiner took all the tests, then the pass rate would theoretically be 100%. But you don’t have perfect ADIs, you don’t have perfect pupils, and you don’t have perfect examiners.
What you do have are typical human beings who are affected by typical human defects. Variances, if you like. And that’s where the 40% comes from.
Now, if you tossed that coin a hundred times and it came down 80 heads, would you think there was something wrong with it? Well, I would. And if the same thing happened for the next hundred tosses, I’d be certain. And if it kept happening, I’d use a different coin next time.
But the problem appears to be that some people wouldn’t see this as an issue and would reject any attempt to fix the coin so that it came down 50:50 like it should do. And this is exactly what keeps happening with these examiners who keep going on about variances, and the ignorant ADIs anxious to believe the worst.
If an examiner has a pass rate which is not the equivalent of 50:50 for a coin toss test (or 40% in their case), or within reasonable limits (95-105% of that 40%), then they are not performing to the required standard – just like the coin that keeps giving 80 heads in every hundred tosses!
Both examiners in these publicised cases appeared too stupid to realise this simple fact.
If someone is on your case for six years – giving you every opportunity to examine what you do – you have to be a very special kind of person not to be able to realise something is up. And you need to be extra-special to conclude that you – out of hundreds and hundreds of other examiners – are not doing something wrong.
