This story reports how a man on a mobility scooter was out with his dogs in Manchester when he was almost knocked off by a driving school car, and then allegedly beaten up when he remonstrated. The “beating” apparently involved being pushed to the floor and having his head stamped on. The “instructor” – in a silver Astra – then drove off.
I must say that the photo in the article doesn’t show the kind of wounds you’d normally associate with having your head stamped on.
Police say they are investigating, and that a counter claim of racial assault has been made. It makes you wonder what actually happened. Indeed, you also wonder if it was actually an instructor or just someone driving an instructor’s car.
I had to smile when I saw this come through on the newsfeeds. It reports that a driving instructor in Ilkeston “narrowly missed out” on being voted the country’s top driving instructor. The article reports:
His pupils voted en masse to put him forward for the Golden L awards, a national competition to find the UK’s top driving tutor…
It also adds:
Andy… says he is thrilled to have beaten 42,000 other instructors to be named second best in the country ‘so early on in his independent career.’
I’ve got news for you, Andy. You didn’t “beat” 42,000 other instructors. You beat all except one of the handful who were put forward by their pupils. I very much doubt that the pupils would have been aware of the award in the first place unless it was… ahem… brought to their attention. More than 99% of the other 42,000 instructors out there didn’t get entered – indeed, they were probably like me and didn’t even know about the competition, and wouldn’t have cared if they did.
Having said that, good luck to you and well done. But be careful not to let it go to your head. When I worked in the rat race, I once got an award I found embarrassing (and didn’t want) for showing “exemplary customer obsession”. In the end, it was precisely the same “customer obsession” that cost me my job.
This story certainly goes against the grain of comments I’ve made in the past. While the old Chalfont Drive test centre was operating, I made a point of the fact that the pass rates both there and at Colwick were about the same – with Colwick being very slightly higher (about 0.2% higher when I commented in 2011).
That has all changed. The Nottingham Evening Post reports that Colwick currently has a pass rate around 46.4%, whereas Beeston’s is a whopping 55.1%. Clifton has a much lower rate of 36.3%.
It makes it difficult for me to continue to argue that if someone is ready for their test then it doesn’t matter where they take it. Having said that, I do more than 90% of my tests at Colwick and my overall pass rate last year was well over 60%. I’ve only ever had two tests at Clifton, with one pass and one (recent) fail – the fail was for a very specific and correct reason. All my tests except one this year have been at Colwick, and my overall pass rate at the moment is 50%.
I still maintain that if someone is ready for their test then it doesn’t matter where they take it. However, there is now no way of avoiding the argument that someone who is less test-ready than someone else would stand a better chance of passing at Beeston, and a greater chance of failing at Clifton. Bugger.
In the article, a local instructor suggests that the extensive tram works in that area means that test candidates spend more time stopped or driving slowly, and this gives them more time to think and plan ahead. I’d agree with that. Mind you, whenever I travel over that side, the variable road layouts (they change from one day to the next without warning) have always struck me as a major risk factor. But in my experience of Beeston tests (I had a run of them last year), examiners avoid the Nottingham side somewhat and direct tests away from the road works. Comments by a typical learner are worrying:
The higher pass rate does make me more hopeful on what will be my first time.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens when the tram works finally end and tests can be conducted on more routes on the Beeston side.
A few weeks ago I wrote an article about the irresponsible advice being given to candidates (and likely to be taken up by any ADI who is a sandwich short of a picnic) to covertly record their driving tests. For anyone who has trouble with big words, in this context “covertly” means doing things in secret or without the knowledge of others.
Most Test Centres have a clearly placed notice warning that recording of driving tests is not allowed. If recording is found to be taking place, there will be an initial request to switch it off. If this is refused, or if suspicions are still aroused, then the test will be terminated and the candidate will lose their fee.
For the record, the DSA is not impressed that they were misrepresented in Fleet News as a direct result of Policewitness.com’s blatant attempts to sell more of its dashcams by urging people to behave dishonestly, and the suggestion that tests are completed according to some sort of agenda. The DSA has also pointed out that they do not allow recording of tests because a single (or even dual) camera cannot provide an accurate record of what was happening all around. They point out that the most common cause of test failure is poor observations, and that a single, forward-pointing camera (or even a dual, rear-pointing one) could not pick this up anymore than it could pick up what was happening either side of the vehicle. They also point out that they have no problem with cameras being fitted – they provide useful training opportunities for pupils on lessons – but they must be switched off during tests.
A normal human being would have no trouble accepting this. But of course, not all ADIs are normal people, and many believe that just because they have a spanking new cheapo camera off eBay then they should be allowed to use it on tests. I recently heard several comments about how the DSA shouldn’t be worried “unless it has something to hide”. This is precisely why cameras must not be allowed – the people saying this kind of thing already believe the DSA does have something to hide, and they’re itching to take issue and show how clever they are.
An example. Last week I had someone fail his test. On his lessons he had already shown a tendency to react to a red light above all else – even if the directional lights applying to him were on green (he had done it three times over two months of lessons). Well, he only got a couple of faults on his test, but one of them was a serious for response to traffic lights. When I questioned the examiner (ours are very helpful), it turned out he stopped at a notorious set of directional lights which were on green for the direction he was heading.
On the way home, he said “I knew you would make an issue out of that, but it definitely wasn’t what you think. I just stopped for a bit too long and she said it was too long”. However, at the risk of disagreeing with him (and annoying him – he has a short fuse in this respect) I pointed out that on the route he had taken there was no scenario where the lights for him would be on red as he rounded the corner, and therefore there would normally be no one stopped at the lights, which meant that there would be no reason for him to stop. By the time I dropped him off, he had partly confessed that he might have momentarily hit the brakes for the wrong red light.
But better still, we had a lesson recently and I took him along the same route. I knew what he had really done on that test, and stood my ground each time he tried to argue around it (it’s amazing how many different and completely unrelated excuses he can come up with for a single mistake). As we came round the corner – our lights on green arrow, but the right-turn ones on red – he slammed on his brakes to stop. I told him in no uncertain terms that that was almost certainly what he’d done on his test. And just to put the icing on the cake, we ran the same route two more times – the first of these he slammed the brakes on again, just as hard, and the second time he went for them and slowed down dramatically before realising. He has a deeply ingrained habit – the result of being self-taught – which he has almost no conscious control over. But during the after-test drive home it was the examiner’s fault…
My point is that if I was one of those dimwits who sees themselves as being at odds with the DSA over every possible aspect of driving, I could really have taken issue over the test fail based on what he told me. But DSA examiners are so reliable that I do not have to assume that every fail is some sort of scheme on their part, or that I need a camera to protect myself. I don’t.
As of September 2014 there are rumours that the DVSA has reviewed its stance on cameras (though NOT to allow tests to be recorded). I haven’t seen anything official and will hold off commenting until I do.
I have written an update as the DVSA has now amended its policy. You still cannot record tests, although insurance cameras are allowed.
Well done to Kevin, who passed first time today with just 2 driver faults. Having recently got married, this was important to him. In fact, as I had also learned from him, it marks a significant turnaround in his life since he left school.
He’s been another one who has been a pleasure to teach (even though he was a Manchester Utd supporter, though their season has made it easier to gain the upper hand in any football arguments of late). The last two passes have been what makes this job really worthwhile.
The HTC One has been voted best smartphone at the Global Mobile Awards 2014. That goes with its T3 award for the same category last year. I’ve had mine for almost a year now and it there really is nothing else out there that I’d want at the moment. I called it a “super phone” back then, and I really meant it.
The device is truly amazing. Apart from its ability to browse websites normally – as though it were a laptop – it functions neatly as a portable Wi-Fi hotspot so I can use my laptop/tablet without having to have a separate contract. It’s just the right size, neither too big or too small.
It takes great photos and videos as and when I need them, and the sound from the speakers when I am watching an online video or news report is second to none. It’s amazing how much power comes out of those speakers, and this was something that all the reviews have picked up on.
When I first bought it, I had planned on disabling Blinkfeed – the home screen which updates with latest news from various feeds you can customise to suit your reading habits. But when I realised just how much you could customise it I wouldn’t be without it now.
It’s made out of aluminium, so it is reassuringly heavy, and it is sleek – putting the chunky iPhone to shame. I recently bought a handmade leather case for it which ramps up its sexiness no end.
At least one of my pupils has gone out and bought one after seeing mine.
This came in on the newsfeeds, and it reports that a learner driver, Stacie Ralphes, was on a driving lesson with a driving instructor when she was clocked at 36mph in a 30mph zone and subsequently received a speeding ticket. She was given the option of points or a speed awareness course and took the latter.
The hyenas don’t appear to have got wind of it yet, so the fact that she was on a lesson with an AA instructor hasn’t been given the usual going over. There’s time, though.
I always explain to my pupils that if we were to get a speeding ticket, it would be the driver who gets the points. The instructor – me – could get in trouble for letting it happen (often referred to as “aiding and abetting”) if it could be shown he was negligent or in some way contributory to the act, but the driver gets the points. The article doesn’t make clear the actual events, since the instructor’s version is not presented.
I have never had any pupil flashed for speeding. But I would be liar – and so would any other instructor – if I claimed that none of my pupils had ever exceeded the limit. They sometimes catch you out and you have to regain control very quickly. If you were in the wrong place at the wrong time… well, it could happen to anyone. Indeed, someone recently pointed out that one of their pupils had passed their driving test – even though at one point they reached 35mph in a 30mph zone, but corrected it. One of my own pupils passed a few years ago, and the examiner commented that he had been exceeding the limit a little, but he’d let it go because it was a good drive otherwise.
As I say, the wrong place at the wrong time and everything could be so different.
In this particular case, you’d think that the police would have shown some discretion because one thing you can safely say is that the instructor wasn’t allowing it on purpose. It is quite possible – likely, even – that the instructor dealt with the problem but just too late to avoid the speed camera logging the speed. I’m only speculating, but then so are those who would tar both the instructor in question and the AA with the same brush without knowing the facts themselves.
As it is, the AA has offered to pay for the speed awareness course (and so they should).
Edit: The hyenas have got a hold of it now. As you’d expect – and in the absence of any specific details other than Stacie Ralphes’ version – there are outraged demands for the instructor concerned to be hung, drawn, and quartered. Whether or not that happens is none of the business of the “experts” making the demands.
There is a saying: there but for the Grace of God, go I. Some of these comedians should look that up to see what it means.
This story appeared in the news yesterday. It tells how a complete prat of a cyclist rode on the M25 motorway in Surrey. The idiot claims his mobile phone app told him to do it – and police apparently bought that.
The thing is, if you watch the CCTV footage, the moron broke just about every rule in the Highway Code. He rides across chevrons and solid white lines on one of the most congested roads in the world, during the rush hour. He had apparently cycled for “several miles” before being stopped. What is really frightening – apart from the fact this person is still going to be allowed to breed – are the comments of the Surrey Police:
Further tweets from the force read: “Genuine mistake I’m sure but could have stopped at bottom of slip road! Most children know not to stray onto a motorway.
“Nice chap but unaware of the rules of the road, believed it ok to ride/walk on hard shoulder, struggled to see why not…”
For “nice chap”, read “several olives short of a pizza”. You can just hear his banter now. I suspect the police didn’t do anything because it would have been like kicking a lame puppy. But the simple fact is, they SHOULD have done something. This person should not be allowed near a bicycle again, and should be on court-ordered psychiatric assessment.
Oh. I almost forgot. Someone DID get a severe “talking to” about it.
Later, Sgt Phil Dix, from the roads policing unit, said… it showed why motorists needed to be alert and vigilant and added: “You never know what you may come across.”
How stupid of us all. It was the motorists who had to avoid him who were most at blame. Can you imagine what would have happened if anyone had hit him? The Surrey Police wouldn’t be calling anyone “nice chap” then, would they?
Just for the record, for “mobile phone app” read “satnav”, because that’s all it is. If a motorist misreads their satnav they get the book thrown at them all the same.
Over the last couple of weeks, there has been a lot of media coverage concerning the so-called Year of Code (YoC) – an initiative in the UK to promote computing education in our schools. Before I talk about that, let’s just take a small detour.
Also in the news this week were reports of the passing of Ian McNaught-Davis. It’s likely that no one under the age of 30 (possibly even older) would have had a clue who he was, but back in the early 80s he was the presenter of The Computer Programme, a BBC series which aimed to teach basic (and BASIC) programming to the masses using the BBC Micro (two more shows followed: Making The Most Of The Micro and Micro Live). Altogether, this amounted to about 5 full series running between 1982 and 1987.
To be fair, only the first two series in this run during 1982-83 dealt predominantly with coding, and by the time of Micro Live in late 1983-87 the BBC had already started on its course of diluting technical content. Micro Live was more of an early “gadget show” than a programming one.
Dumbing down aside, McNaught-Davis effectively helped create the technology we have today. His presentation skills and knowledge spawned a generation of coders who shaped the modern computer world as a direct result of those early TV shows.
But running in parallel, ever since that early peak in technical TV programming, the UK has been on a gradual downward slope. In many ways, the BBC has been both creator and destroyer – what it created in 1982, it has been destroying since 1983 with the trend towards consumerism and dumbing everything down. I’ve mentioned before that science shows like Horizon have been ruined by the removal of raw technical content, replacing it with pointless topics, childish narrative, annoying sound bites, and repetitive video effects loops. Well, technology programming has been treated in precisely the same way – all technology coverage nowadays has to be packaged to appeal to the lowest common denominator of viewer. The only way that can be achieved is by broadcasting endless “gadget shows” about mobile phones and mobile phone games.
Going back to the original topic, YoC has got a hell of a task ahead of it if it wants to turn 30 years of progressive ignorance into technological skill inside a year. So the big question has to be: does it have a chance?
Well, it’s worth taking a look at the bottom of the YoC website to see who the guiding lights of the organisation are. Not specifically their names, but their job titles. To start with, there are 28 of them on the YoC foundation’s board. Over half of those are simply listed as “founders” of various obscure websites. Several are venture capitalists, several are representatives from companies like British Gas or newspapers like The Guardian. The two leaders – Chairman and Executive Director (ED) – are listed as “entrepreneur in residence” and “founder, Million Jobs Campaign”. It isn’t exactly a Who’s Who of technology whiz kids.
The ED is Lottie Dexter. and much has been made in the technology media about an appearance she made on BBC’s Newsnight. In it, she said that being able to code was vital to understanding how the world works – but then admitted she couldn’t code herself. The segment is here:
When I watched it my first thought was that they were deliberately focusing on women. Now, we all know that the IT industry is – and always has been – staffed predominantly by males, Depending on your source, the best male:female ratio is 2:1, and as little as 10:1 (when I worked in IT, out of 600 people on the shop floor there were less than a dozen females). It is only higher when you move away from the sharp end and into the administrative side. There is a damned good reason for that: in general, men want to do IT and women don’t. People have got to learn to live with it instead of trying to change it. No one is stopping women becoming techie geeks. It’s just that they don’t bloody well want to (no one whinges about the fact that in nursing, for example, the ratio of women to men is 10:1). The biggest worry for me, therefore, is that YoC is yet another equality drive pretending that it isn’t. And even if it isn’t, there are plenty of unbalanced people out there who will try to make sure it is.
Then we come to Lottie Dexter, the figurehead of YoC. She appears at about 5½ minutes into the segment, and the first thing she reveals to Jeremy Paxman is that she cannot code herself. Paxman expresses surprise at this, and at the fact that she aims to learn “within a year”. She further claims that the teachers who are going to teach coding can “pick it up within a day”. As the interview proceeds, with Paxman doing what he’s good at, it becomes clear that Dexter is basically a one-trick puppy. I lost count of the number of times she uses the word “code” – many times in the wrong context. For example, she considers website design as “coding”, and clearly believes that graphic design is part of that. It isn’t that simple.
The article in The Register asks:
So what made Silva [the chairman] choose Lottie Dexter to lead the initiative? It’s hard to tell. She completed her politics degree in 2010 and formerly worked as the PR chief for the Conservative think-tank founded by Iain Duncan-Smith, the Centre for Social Justice. The only other work experience she cites on her LinkedIn page is as a campaigner: director of the “Million Jobs” campaign, a “charity” that spontaneously emerged to support government-friendly business policies.
After identifying Dexter as an empty vessel as far as coding is concerned, it goes on to question the already criticised “incestuous relationships” involved in the scheme. It would appear that Silva occupies a post that was created for him by Saul Klein, a partner in the venture capital firm Silva is part of. Klein is also on the board of many of the companies listed in the 28 YoC members. Incestuous isn’t the word. The phrase “jobs for the lads” springs to mind.
Dumbing down over the last three decades has resulted in people like Lottie Dexter – loud and pushy, photogenic, female, but having no substance whatsoever. These are the kinds of people that society is looking for to head ideas like YoC. Those who have the real skills – people like Ian McNaught-Davis, who could teach from the ground up in a clear and concise way – no longer stand a chance.
Mind you, you have to remember that one of the prerequisites of being a techie geek is a complete absence of interpersonal skills – in fact, this trait is often what turns people to coding in the first place. One comment on the YouTube page says:
This woman thinks that you can teach coding after a day of learning.
Ok – let’s hear her views on design patterns, abstraction, polymorphism, programming to the interface, loose versus tight coupling, functional programming languages, declarative programming languages, garbage collection etc. etc.
The problem is that children have NEVER been taught that sort of thing, nor is it (or should it be) the intention to start doing it now. Many of today’s older coders learned their skills from the likes of Ian McNaught-Davis, and all you have to do is look at one of the episodes of The Computer Programme to see that the content was very basic (and the people much less photogenic). But it got the message across and it kick-started a million careers in IT.
And it is this level of information – if it were taught in schools – that could kick-start a million more.
This article was originally written in July 2011. However, there has been a run of hits on it recently, so I’ve updated it (2014).
It’s getting another run of hits (2020). It’s quite amusing looking back, because ten years after the original article, nothing has actually changed! Apart from DSA becoming DVSA.
The BBC reported back in 2011 that the government [was] to review the trainee driving instructor (pink badge) system. As of 2014, nothing has changed and everything is still up in the air, although the proposals are still current. If nothing else, the time scale involved so far should provide a vivid illustration of how long it takes for anything to happen. Personally, I’d be in favour of a revamp for the simple reason that the vast majority of PDIs never become ADIs, yet they are still allowed to teach learners if they opt for the trainee licence route.
The trainee licence is often referred to as a “pink” or “pinkie”, by virtue of the colour of the badge that is issued by the DSA (now known as DVSA). A full ADI licence gets a green badge with an octagon on it, and the trainee one is pink with a triangle. The pink badge provides a means for PDIs who have passed their Part 1 and Part 2 tests to gain experience training real pupils while preparing for the Part 3 test of instructional ability.
The argument that practice makes perfect is quite logical on paper. However, there is no evidence that PDIs who have taken the pink route have higher pass rates at Part 3 than those who didn’t. More on that later.
A PDI who wants to use the pink route has to apply to DVSA. The pink licence is valid for 6 months and can only be extended at the DVSA’s discretion. The full conditions of the trainee licence are given here. Here’s part of the text:
3. Rules for using your trainee licence
You must:
be a ‘fit and proper’ person
get the required amount of supervision or extra training while your licence is still valid
make sure your advertising doesn’t make it seem like you’re a fully qualified instructor
Displaying your licence
You must display your trainee licence on the nearside edge of the front windscreen of your car while you give driving lessons.
Where you work
Your trainee licence shows the name and address of your training establishment. You can only give instruction from there, so you can’t work independently, eg by setting up your own school.
Changing your driving school
You must apply for a new trainee licence if you leave a driving school and join a new one. There’s no fee for doing this.
The Driving Standards Agency (DSA [now DVSA]) will send you a new licence showing the details of your new school. You should send your old licence to DSA as soon as you get the new one.
You can still give driving lessons whole you wait for your new one
When trainee licences can be taken away
The ADI registrar can take your trainee licence away before it runs out if:
you break any of the rules for having a trainee licence
the licence was issued by mistake or gained by fraud
you fail 3 attempts at the ADI part 3 test
Not using your trainee licence
You should return your trainee licence to DSA [now DVSA] if you aren’t using it, eg because of a long period of illness.
You won’t get a refund, but DSA [now DVSA] will know that you haven’t had full use of the licence. This will be a factor in deciding whether to give you another licence in future.
There is more, but this is the main gist. There is no mention of how much a trainee can charge because lesson prices are not part of DVSA’s remit. Interestingly, when The AA took over BSM they made it clear that they were going to introduce differential pricing for PDIs. It is stated in black and white in the news release to BSM franchisees released in February 2011. My understanding is that BSM PDIs now charge £15 per hour for lessons (the actual price may be region dependent), although it is hard to find any of this in writing.
The overall trainee licence conditions are very restrictive… if they’re adhered to. Many PDIs circumvent the issue of not advertising themselves as ADIs by not mentioning their status at all. It’s advertising by implication, since if you don’t explicitly state that you are a trainee, people will simply assume that you are an ADI (no one has ever asked me). These same PDIs advertise freely, sometimes with websites furnished by their trainers, and carefully avoiding any mention that they are only trainees. Others advertise on their own, knowing full well that unless someone reports them, the DSA (DVSA) is unlikely to find out and take their badge away. Many don’t display their badge openly – it will be behind the tax disc or sun visor, or in the glove box (this is sometimes given as specific advice by certain training schools). And in all honesty, the only contact most PDIs have with any “supervisor” is in the classroom. There is virtually no “supervision” while they hold the pink licence or during their in-car lessons. The PDI’s objective is simply to earn money, and their learners are almost always completely unaware of all this.
Both PDIs and training companies are implicated in these shenanigans. It’s a carefully crafted game of chess, designed to bend the rules of the pink licence as far as they will go without actually breaking them, though as I’ve said some people do break them knowing that they’re unlikely to get caught.
PDIs often ask for advice on forums about where to lease cars from, and querying what expenses are tax deductible. Given that it costs upwards of £70 a week to lease a tuition vehicle – plus the fact it takes time to build up a pupil base even for a qualified ADI – a PDI with household bills to pay will be looking way beyond just gaining experience for their Part 3 test. This perhaps explains why the pink route doesn’t seem to improve Part 3 pass rates. Very few people are using it to gain experience or improve their skills – they’re using it to make money as if they were qualified instructors.
If the terms of the trainee licence were enforced, would the pink badge be a good thing? Personally, I believe it would. However, even though many current ADIs used the pink route to get their green badges, they are often staunchly anti-pink now. I know of at least one very frequent and opinionated contributor to several forums who advertised himself clearly as though he were an ADI while he was on a pink. His training school provided website facilities identical to those used by qualified ADIs in order for him to do it. And yet he is against the pink system. It seems that once they become “fit & proper” ADIs they start to vehemently oppose anyone doing precisely what they themselves did.
Another factor driving this anger is that the trainee licence is traditionally associated with larger driving schools such as RED or BSM – reviled by the ignorant masses, and blamed for flooding the market with new ADIs – and (horror of horrors) schools which offer franchises. It is that which the naysayers are opposing, not the pink badge itself.
The original BBC article reports that RED believes trainees should be licensed, because it “brings regulation into an unregulated industry.” RED says clearly that it believes trainees must receive expert training if road safety isn’t to be put at risk.
The DIA reckons that it is wrong for trainees to charge normal lesson rates because they are “less experienced”. I agree, but I would just remind anyone reading this that charging full rate has always been normal practice. Furthermore, no one at the DIA seems to be concerned with the fact that a PDI who hasn’t taken the pink route can pass Part 3 one day, and be out a couple of weeks later giving lessons without ever having done so before.
A driving instructor from Kent – who was on pink – says of his trainer (a large school):
If I needed advice from someone I could always ring up and get that advice but there was no actual supervision or follow-up calls or anything like that,” he said.
The quality of instruction isn’t so good, they may not be in full control of the pupil like a fully qualified instructor would be and some charge the same price for a lesser job.
You can see what I mean about people changing their colours once they become ADIs, can’t you? It worked for him, and he was happy to qualify, but is now critical of his trainers’ methods. This is typical of what happens to many people two seconds after they get their Part 3 pass.
The ADINJC makes the comment in the article:
Someone on a pink licence can actually fail the last part of their assessment to become a fully qualified instructor and on the same day go out and teach learners by themselves.
Yes. It’s always been like that. Nothing has changed. Nothing has degraded. Nothing has got worse. So why say it? What the ADINJC fails to explain is that a PDI has three chances to pass the Part 3 test, and failing one attempt while on the trainee licence doesn’t necessarily mean they are poor instructors, nor does it mean they are any worse than they were before they took the test. They are simply doing what the system allows them to – and always has. It’s what the pink system is.
The ADINJC’s comments also fail to address what I said above – that someone with absolutely no experience teaching real learners can pass Part 3 and be out teaching for real a week or two later, no questions asked! And to really set the cat among the pigeons, people who ultimately turn out to be appalling instructors can still sail through Part 3. There is a lot more that needs to change than just the PDI trainee licence. Poor instruction isn’t confined to PDIs.
As Trevor Wedge [former Chief Driving Examiner] says:
The trainee licence system has been set up to allow trainee driver instructors to gain some practice as they are preparing for the final part of their examination process.
They are encouraged to work very closely with a supervising instructor.
The fact that many trainees don’t work closely with a supervisor isn’t a fault of the system itself. It’s a fault with those who use and abuse the system. The terms of the licence are very specific, and breaching any of those terms is always a deliberate act – even if it is down to plain ignorance.
How do I know what colour badge my instructor has?
Someone found the blog on that precise term.
Simple answer. If his badge in stuck on the windscreen in full view, it’s probably green. If it is nowhere to be seen, it’s probably pink.
Ask him to show it to you. If he won’t, he either hasn’t got one, or it’s pink and he’s claiming otherwise. There is absolutely no reason for an instructor not to show you their badge unless they’re hiding something.
Can a PDI set up their own website?
There’s nothing that specifically says they can’t, but they must not pretend they are fully-qualified ADIs. However, you cannot do it if you are not part of a school – you can’t do it on your own.
It’s a really murky area, because you can argue that not making any claim at all means you’re not saying you are an ADI. However, you could be said to be implying it unless you state categorically that you are a trainee. The Pink Badge is supposed to be a training tool, and you can only advertise as part of your training establishment or school.
fact, as I had also learned from him, it marks a significant turnaround in his life since he left school.
