New Standards Check Grading Structure

The DSA (soon to be known as the DVSA) has sent out an email announcing that from 7 April 2014, the date from which the new Standards Check will replace the original Check Test, a new grading structure will be in place for ADIs.

The current scoring system has grade 4 (satisfactory), grade 5 (good), and grade 6 (excellent). Grades 1-3 are below standard or “fails”. The new system will simply have three grades: grade A (good), grade B (satisfactory), and Fail.

In all the years I have been doing this job I honestly can’t remember having been asked once what my grade is. Even when the topic has arisen later on during lessons, no one has shown any real interest in the grades. The only person who DOES have in interest is me – in the early days I wanted to improve, and in the present I want to maintain my standards. My grade was a good way of monitoring that.

I don’t have any issues with the new grading system from a practical perspective. It won’t alter the way I do my job, or affect my earnings, and unless I suddenly start being a crap instructor the chances are I’ll just end up with an A (even a B wouldn’t matter, except to my ego). Politically, though, the change is pointless. No matter what the DSA/DVSA says, parents and learners don’t give a toss about grades, and combining the original grades 5 and 6 into a single grade A hardly helps instructors “promote themselves” in any useful way. All most learners are interested in initially is passing for the least cost, then – after many have been bitten by cheapos delivering poor instruction because they’ve cut their overheads to minimise the effect of cutting their prices – a damage limitation exercise with a decent instructor charging decent prices.A monkey could do this job - and they often do!

Mind you, it remains to be seen whether or not the new Standards Check actually fails more instructors than the previous system. The DSA/DVSA’s preoccupation with “sub-standard instruction” that it never actually attacks head-on might come to something then.

Recently, I’ve picked up a handful of pupils from other instructors, and given the number of hours they’ve had in lessons – bearing in mind that they have now had one or two sessions with me, and I’ve been able to assess their capabilities – their lack of progress towards the test is shocking. They’re far more able than their progress suggests.

One pupil commented that she’d had over 50 hours and “couldn’t understand the stickers” in her school car because they “didn’t line up” the way her instructor kept saying. I’ve written about these bloody stickers before. They don’t work.

And another immediately stalled my car because she’d been taught in a diesel and her jackass of an instructor had taught her not to use gas (presumably, just to save him a few tenths of a penny in imagined fuel costs). I’ve written about that before, too. It happens a lot. How can you call yourself a driving instructor if your pupils can’t drive in any car other than yours if they manage to scrape a pass?

A monkey could do this bloody job – and unfortunately, they often do. Even worse, they sometimes manage to do it for years, putting on a brilliant show for the periodic check test which doesn’t pick this sort of nonsense up.

Will the new Standards Check get these kind of people off the Register? I doubt it – but until it does, any grading system will remain meaningless.


The story has been picked up in certain corners of the media. This article says:

Becoming a driving instructor has become a popular way for people to boost their income in recent years, and the authority, formerly known as the DSA, is concerned that standards in tuition are slipping.

Although I agree with them, that isn’t what the DSA/DVSA is saying at all. It might be thinking it – but it isn’t saying it. The article also says:

Learner drivers are urged to check that their driving instructor is fully qualified, by looking for a green DVSA certificate, which should be displayed in their car’s windscreen. A pink certificate indicates that the instructor is a trainee who is gaining experience as part of the qualification process.

I can see where they are coming from, but they could have worded it better and less ambiguously. Although I never had a pink licence myself, the “pinkie” remains a common route to becoming a fully qualified ADI. It is wrong to denigrate it without some sort of clarification.

If someone is hiding their pink badge, or if they lie about their status, then you should definitely dump them and look elsewhere. However, people who are openly using the pink licence for its intended purpose (and who are not charging full lesson prices) should not be dismissed outright as potentially suitable instructors.


How often is the Standards Check carried out?

It’s supposed to be once in any 4-year period. However, if you get a poor result (i.e. if you fail a check) then you’ll be tested again much sooner than that.

The Standards Check was only introduced in April 2014, and it is too soon to say whether or not DVSA will adhere to this 4-year time period. With the old Check Test, if you believe what some people say, they weren’t tested for 6 or 7 years or more sometimes. Yet it was supposed to be done within similar time periods.

Those Americans… Again

I get a lot of stuff from the various newsfeeds. About 90% of it is either completely irrelevant, or of non-UK origin (so not usually relevant). Of the non-UK stuff. most of it is North American, and if you break that down still further then you find that about a third is to do with banning texting while driving, a third is about politicians arguing that banning texting while driving would be “unconstitutional”, and the final third is either about surprise discoveries that texting when you’re driving is dangerous or research by Clown Colleges that claim there’s no proof that texting while you’re driving is dangerous.

I gave up reporting on these stories ages ago – initially because I couldn’t keep up, and subsequently because they’re all the same; basically a lot of crap. However, this one is such a good example of why they’re crap that I thought I’d mention it.

If you thought the UK was bad when it comes to spelling out the obvious to people who are too stupid to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, just be thankful we don’t have it as bad as the Americans do. You see, to anyone or anything with more intelligence than a small pebble, it is clear that your driving is highly likely to be seriously impaired if you try and send a text to someone while you’re behind the wheel or travelling in traffic or at speed. It’s at least as dangerous as, for example, going to sleep.

In short, texting while driving IS dangerous, and no amount of Clown College “research” or political waffle about banning it being “unconstitutional” is going to alter that.

So the link is funny in that the Americans see the need for a simulator to show people that effectively shutting your eyes while driving at 70mph in heavy traffic might be a bad thing. To be fair, you have to remember that the average American teenager can get behind the wheel no matter how incompetent they are at driving (sometimes, from as young as 14). All the same, it’s a monumental waste of money designing a machine that simply demonstrates the obvious.


Just in case you don’t believe me, take a look at this link which came in a couple of days after I wrote the stuff above. South Dakota has just passed a new law banning texting and driving. But if only it were that simple.

You see, this law has been the topic of fierce debate for several years. This year alone, the argument was between two competing bills, and centred on whether or not tickets could be issued for texting on its own, and whether cities would be allowed to pass and enforce their own laws. The stalemate was so pathetic that many cities went ahead and introduced their own bans. However, the new bill is very watered down – it is a petty offence warranting a mere $100 fine, and it cannot be enforced unless the driver was stopped for something else!

You need to read the rest of the story to understand the mess American law is in. Talk about complicated.


Then there was this one from Salt Lake City. Here, a bill only got passed by 41 votes to 28. In Utah, texting is already banned, but the law doesn’t say anything about surfing, tweeting, or watching TV footage, etc. In America, if something isn’t specifically illegal then it is absolutely legal. There are no grey areas.

As I say, the newsfeeds have many of these every day.

Another Two-wheeled Idiot Rides On Motorway

Not long ago I wrote about how an idiot cyclist had caused chaos on the M25 by riding his bicycle on there, and how that in spite of trying to give the police a lesson on the Highway Code, he had been let off with just words of caution. In fact, it would appear that he was one of those people who is a few olives short of a pizza – but not enough to warrant being locked up for his own safety. Incredibly, the severest warning was apparently issued to motorists that they should watch out for such people (see the following paragraph for an update to this).

Well, another recent story tells how a cyclist was stopped on the M3. He claimed he was following his satnav instructions. It appears that both he, and the other idiot from the earlier story, were given £50 on-the-spot fines. The previous story didn’t mention that.

The problem is that both of them are complete imbeciles, and should have been prosecuted further. Neither story makes clear whether the two men had driving licences or not, though if they did then they KNEW the rules regarding cycling on motorways. If they DID have driving licences, then both should have been endorsed with points and a much larger fine. Both should have been named and shamed.

The police are taking too soft a line with cyclists, who are a growing menace on the roads. Jeez, you can’t even get away from the prats on motorways now.

Test Pass: 8/3/2014

TickWell done Tom, who passed today with seven driver faults. He should have passed a few weeks ago, but that itchy foot and a stubborn refusal to look at the green straight-ahead arrow instead of the red light on the other stack resulted in a fail.

That’s one of my rocky core now out of the way.

Pedestrian Splasher Gets Banned, Accuser Outraged

The Daily Mail reports that Samuel Lees, 22, has been effectively banned from driving and fined £500 for splashing pedestrians in his car earlier this year. The mother who, with her children, he splashed is quoted:

I am very, very shocked by the punishment he has been given.

I don’t think that is fair at all. I think they must have wanted to make an example of him. But I think a slap on the wrist would have been sufficient.

Perhaps he could have gone on a driver awareness course, but what he has got from the court is really quite harsh. I would not wish that fine on anybody.

Whoa. Hold on a minute, here. Debbie Pugh – a “company director” – wasn’t quite so forgiving back in January. When the Daily Mail interviewed her at the time, she said:

The water went up over my shoulders, totally drenching me and the children – it was dirty, cold and it was disgusting. What he did was absolutely on purpose, there’s no doubt about it at all.

The driver could have avoided the puddle by going around it but he chose to speed through it and soak us all. I was fuming at the time.

My boy was in tears afterwards. The children were so wet I thought they might have to wear their PE kits when they arrived at school.

I saw the police were behind him when it happened but I did not initially realise they had stopped him.

When I came back from the school at about 9am there were blue lights flashing and they had pulled a car over and I realised it was him. At the time I was so angry – I am glad the police took action – people can’t go around driving like that.

You see, Ms Pugh, you got your wish. He no longer can go around driving like that. And this is one good reason why people like you shouldn’t be interviewed by newspapers and your opinions publicised. Your indignation could easily have influenced the outcome of the court’s decision, whereas your complete change of tune wouldn’t. Once upon a time, your ambivalent attitude might easily have resulted in someone innocent being executed. In this modern setting, Lees can no longer drive and may lose his job as a result.

Now, I am not commenting on the severity of the punishment. Lees deserves to be punished, and I don’t believe all his claims of innocence for one second. But again we have the problem of consistency in British Law. As the more recent report mentions, back in 2009 a woman, Kerry Callard, posted a Facebook video of herself splashing some kids at a bus stop. She can be heard squealing with glee as she does so. But police only “had a word with her”. Then, several years before that a guy from Somerset was fined £150 and given three points on his licence for wetting the trouser bottoms of a workman as he drove through a puddle at 10mph.

The offence of splashing pedestrian – certainly, the prosecution of it – is quite rare. But the few extant cases clearly show blatant sexual discrimination on the part of the authorities. Callard is by far the worst offender in this small sample – even videoing herself committing the crime on purpose – yet she got off completely. Someone who was taking genuine care through a puddle got points. Lees is somewhere in between those two – and got six points plus a £500 fine. As a new driver, six points is equal to a ban.

As I said recently, the Law is an ass.

Note that I have written about splashing pedestrians before.

Haim @ Nottingham Rock City

I first got wind of Haim following a feature in Classic Rock magazine, and when I saw that they were appearing at Rock City I ordered tickets way back in October last year. Then they appeared on Jools’ Hootenanny on New Year’s Eve. Well, I went to them last night, and they put on a great show.Haim's Este at Rock City

Classic Rock’s review emphasised their rock dimension, whereas their appearance on Hootenanny was more of an exercise in pop – which made me wonder if I’d made the right decision.

No one can seem to make up their minds what genre Haim belong to. The Wikipedia entry describes them as “nu-folk-meets-nineties-R&B” – and if I’d have seen that on its own I wouldn’t have gone to see them for love nor money. The fact that they apparently signed to Jay-Z’s management group would have further dissuaded me.

Others suggest they are influenced by Fleetwood Mac, but whatever others say you should always go on your own judgement. So I did. And I wasn’t disappointed.

The support act was “Saint Raymond”. I can’t get my head around whether they’re actually a band, or some guy called Saint Raymond aka Callum Burrows who has a backing band. I think it’s the latter, which actually does them a disservice – to be brutally honest, Burrows came across as the weakest link. As a band they were, well… competent. Nothing to shout home about, and after a couple of songs very “samey”. They were straight out of the 1980s indie scene – and that scene could be excruciating even back then.Danielle from Haim

Haim were very late coming on stage – they must have appeared around 9.30pm. Their set lasted for little more than an hour, which is maybe not surprising when you consider that they only have one album to date, and maybe this had something to do with the delay. Don’t get me wrong, that’s not meant in a negative way, it’s just that a 45 minute album is 45 minutes of music, and you can’t stretch that much beyond.

As a result, Haim performed a couple of covers – the most notable of which was Fleetwood Mac’s “Oh Well”, which was a full on rock jam, and which expressed the side of them I like the most. Early on, Este also climbed on to the speakers.

Even their poppier numbers were interspersed with great guitar riffs and pounding percussion, so rock was never lost entirely – though it nearly was when Danielle took to the drum kit at the start of the encore. Nearly, but not quite.Haim at Rock City

The gig was a sell-out (it sold out months ago), but the big question is what direction they will take now.

For me, the rock path is without doubt the best option – but R&B and rap will pay much more, and I can see them heading that way. Most American bands do. It’s a shame.

I got some decent photos (well, not of Alana, as she had her back to the side I was on most of the time). The crowd was a bit on the immature side, and was about 80% female. Fortunately, that meant most of it was about half my height. I almost got arc eye from all the LEDs from the selfies that were being taken, and there was one close shave when some arsehole (tall female) attempted to stand in front of me after I’d secured a clear view for the whole evening to that point – people who come in at the last minute, and then expect to get pole position really piss me off.Este again

Rock City needs to get its act together as far as the cleaners are concerned. The floor was the stickiest I have ever been stuck to. It was dangerously sticky – if you stood still for more than a minute, any attempt to move almost meant falling over as both feet remained in place.

An indifferent curry at the Mogal-e-Azam – I’m sure that place is under new management – rounded off a decent night of music.

Next gig is Steel Panther later this month, also at Rock City.

Annoying Adverts 2014

If you use the search box on the right and type “annoying adverts”, you’ll see the previous examples I’ve written about. It seems that I’m not alone, as those adverts were specifically Googled by people (along with the word “annoying”) to find the blog.

I was just typing out an article before I left for my afternoon lesson, and I was assailed by two candidates for 2014’s most annoying adverts. Both involve whistling – the most irritating sound known to man.

The first was for Nescafe instant coffee. It features a number of people whistling “Bring Me Sunshine” and making other noises. It was followed immediately by an advert for TSB and, if anything, the annoyance level was higher due to the tuneless high-pitched racket. To make matters worse, TSB is obviously on some sort of campaign, as another variant with the same intense whistling came on at the next commercial break.

Why can’t people get it into their thick skulls that whistling is annoying? With knobs on.

Well, In Florida Too…

Another funny story (funny for the rest of us) – from Florida this time. Patrick Snay had been in dispute over losing his job as a headmaster, and the authorities had agreed an out-of-court settlement of $80,000. Snay had to agree not to reveal the terms of the settlement. So far, so good.

But it would appear that Mr Snay had not really learnt much about the mentalities of the age group he had been associated with for however long he’d been a headmaster.

His daughter, Dana, immediately went on to Facebook and blabbed:

Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver. Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT,

Like most immature people, she had a list of followers as long as your arm – and some were either current or former pupils at the school. She had some 1,200 followers, to be a little more precise. Gulliver immediately went back to the court, which has ruled in their favour and blocked the settlement.

So Mama and Papa Snay won’t be getting $80,000 after all. And Dana won’t be gallivanting around Europe at Gulliver’s expense. If her parents have anything about them, she won’t be gallivanting anywhere at anyone’s expense.

Only In California…

The newsfeeds are alive with American articles about “distracted driving”. Nothing is ever simple in America, and California specialises in taking that fact several steps further. Most American states cannot agree on what is legal and what isn’t (just look at the latest from Jackson, Mississippi to see that in action), particularly when it comes to using mobile phones when driving. On top of that, the American constitution seems to result in almost nothing being legally illegal! This particular story illustrates that clearly (link now dead).

Stephen Spriggs was given a ticket when he used his mobile phone whilst stationary in a traffic jam to look for an alternative route. He challenged the fine, and the appeal court has ruled that the law in question only applies to people “listening and talking” on their phones.

The law the CHP officer used to ticket Spriggs applies specifically to people “listening and talking” on cellphones, not using their mobile phone in other ways, the court said.

Texting while driving remains illegal under another California law passed after the one at issue in Spriggs’ case.

So it would appear that driving around fiddling with your satnav app is perfectly OK in California after this ruling. Heaven help them when Google Glass gains popularity.

Boy Racer Jailed For Killing Teenagers

Samuel Etherington, 20, has been jailed for 9 years, banned from driving for 7 years, and ordered to take an extended test when he is allowed to drive again. Although the report doesn’t make it clear, it seems that the driving ban will run concurrently with the prison sentence, meaning that when Etherington is released – probably in around 5 years time – he will only have to wait 2 years before getting his Provisional Licence back. If he doesn’t get parole immediately he may come straight out and be able to drive.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: UK Law is a complete ass sometimes.

Etherington was driving a modified Honda Civic (which are fast to begin with), with lowered suspension and loud exhaust. He had been taking ketamine (often referred to as “horse tranquiliser”) and mephedrone (an amphetamine), both of which are illegal. According to the Mirror article he revved his engine as he drove past Olivia Lewry and Jasmine Allsop. The two girls “shouted abuse” at him, and he turned around and drove at them at high speed. He hit them on the wrong side of the road, and both were killed.

What makes the story even more frightening is that the two girls knew Etherington and had actually arranged for him to pick them up from the party they had attended. Etherington’s car had a black box fitted and it showed that he accelerated to 71mph in a 30mph zone, striking the girls at approximately 65mph.

The BBC’s version of the story adds a few more astonishing details. It seems he lied about his speed, claiming he was driving at about 30mph. The black box in his car, which provided the real speed he was travelling at, was fitted because he had previously been banned from driving (after forcing a police officer to jump out of the way to avoid being hit, and failing to stop), and he couldn’t afford the insurance otherwise. The mug shot of Etherington shows him to be the archetypal pimply little scumbag you’d expect. Heaven only knows how he managed to get away with only 9 years instead of the maximum 14 given his record and the nature of this case.

But more chilling is the overlooked underworld today’s young people inhabit. All sentimental issues aside, the two girls knew Etherington and quite possibly had rode in his car before with him behaving the way people who drive modified pratmobiles usually behave. He was a drug user, a liar, and had a criminal record.

But the really, really scary part is that he isn’t unusual, and nor were the girls.