At the time I stuck my neck out to inform them on a certain forum (frequented by very immature people). Unfortunately – nearly a year down the line – we have heard nothing from Mike Penning (Road Safety Minister) indicating that the supposed change to the law is ever going to happen, and those immature types are becoming restless in their typically immature way! They’re about 5 minutes away from shooting the messenger.
The original reports were very specific. Penning was very specific. So it just goes to show how much you can trust a Tory politician when he says something.
Even if it came into effect next week, the total lack of communication or information to instructors (who would need to prepare) and everyone else following such an announcement is shocking.
I can see no reason to suggest that it isn’t going to happen, but the big question remains “when?” – and Penning has shown yet again what a clown he really is.
I saw this a few days ago. It tells how driving lessons are being given to young people between 15 and 19 years old in Wokingham.
I’ve written before about how lessons have been given to those as young as 11, and that that particular course was being championed by self-declared motoring guru (and former Top Gear presenter), Quentin Willson. I said then that I believe children should be kept away from cars – which are for adults – but taught road safety through cycling proficiency and things like The Green Cross Code, etc.
The reason I believe that is because this current fad is simply designed to pander to the wants of people who would otherwise break the law. The best it can achieve is to make sure they break the law slightly more safely than they would have done otherwise. More realistically, though, it is simply a unique selling point (USP) dreamed up by a handful of driving instructors, and as such I can’t fault it.
This latest example is probably just a case of jumping on the bandwagon, and I doubt that it would have happened if the other lot hadn’t done it first. Again, from the perspective of making money for driving instructors, the idea cannot be faulted.
But I will say again that cars are for adults, not children. And children shouldn’t be encouraged like this when the situation with them driving illegally is already bad enough. There’s no evidence that starting them early makes them safer drivers in later life – that’s just wishful thinking. Far too many other factors govern their behaviour, and I fear that this pandering to them is simply another factor likely to worsen their behaviour rather than improve it.
Parents (many of whom are driving instructors) should concentrate on saying “NO” to their offspring a little more instead of trying to turn them into mini-adults way before their DNA has triggered enough of the right hormones for them to pull it off.
Wokingham is at least only dealing with teenagers, but 15 is still too young for someone to be tempted with something that will become a symbol of their embryonic manhood once they turn 17.
An ATV is an All Terrain Vehicle (I guess we’d call them quad bikes over here). Well, in Canada a paediatric group is saying that children should be banned from driving them because…
…children under the age of 16 lack the knowledge, physical size, strength, and cognitive and motor skills to operate the machines safely…
…The highest risk of injury is really between sort of [ages] 10 to 25…
Physical size and strength are obviously more relevant to ATVs. But cognitive and motor skills are definitely not. And that’s one of the major reasons young drivers have accidents after they pass their driving tests.
It translates to: they’re not as good as they think they are – even up to age 25.
These misguided adults offering kiddie-lessons can’t see what they’re really doing – they’re trying to convince children that they ARE that good, when the laws of nature guarantee that they aren’t.
I’ll say again that it’s why children should be kept away from motor vehicles, and not encouraged to play with them and made to think they’re all grown up before their time.
I received an email via the contact form this morning from a guy in Bromley (his IP address comes up as Brierley Hill, so I assume it must be the Bromley in the West Midlands). He identifies himself as “Amused from Bromley”.
Just to remind people that the guy selling Alcopal is from the West Midlands, too, but that must just be a huge coincidence, and there is no connection whatsoever.
Anyway, he says:
Are you or this website trying to be satirical? If so it is only mildly funny but if not it has become amazingly hilarious!!! I have read some of your pages and sorry but you are such a bigot. Why don’t you try to write a “piece” that doesn’t involve insults? Any fool can say “Dickheads” and “chavs” as a way of demonstrating how upset you feel. Maybe if you look through a dictionary you may find some alternative words to use rather than searching the internet for other news stories that clearly contradict what you are stating as fact. Some serious research involves getting up from the desk and walking/driving to the local library and looking through some books, periodicals and newspapers (think of the tabloids as sensationalist’s not serious news!).
By the way the “reports” do lighten my day so please do not take this too seriously as we all have a right to comment.
Yours very amused.
Just to clarify what I said in my About page, this is MY blog, and I write in it what I want to write about. I don’t do group hugs (or the equivalent in blog form) and write about stuff I just agree with (maybe except under music and technology). I comment on things I have an opinion on. And I write it in my OWN style. So I’m not “trying” to be anything, and if you don’t like it, don’t read it.
Let’s just remind ourselves what the purveyors of Alcopal – and those who want to buy it – are trying to do.
drink and drive
admit to being pulled for drink driving before
want to carry on drink driving
disguise the fact they’ve been drinking so that the police can’t prosecute
ignore at least one source which mentions the dangers of the active ingredients – which include possible birth defects
The dictionary definition of “bigot” comes up as:
– a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race
Well, the number of positive messages I get far outweighs the total of THREE I have ever received which have been critical, so my views (and there are nearly 3,000 of them so far) are at least shared by a lot of others. But let’s play along with this, and ignore the fact that just creating a blog or having an opinion on various things doesn’t in itself turn someone into a bigot (although lesser intellects reading said blog might easily convince themselves otherwise, especially if they don’t understand that definition properly), it would be fair to say that someone who is completely in favour of Alcopal and what it sets out to achieve is as much of a bigot as someone who – like myself – doesn’t see it quite so favourably.
Given the choice of being the type of bigot who wants to drink and drive, mask the fact and possibly kill people as a result, and risk begetting kids with six fingers or who have to pee out of their belly button (without being sure it won’t actually cause that), or the other kind, who is against that type of driver mentality by virtue of his profession… well, I know which one I’d choose every time.
I think it’s still fair to say that someone who really does want to promote Alcopal in any way whatsoever, knowing those facts or possible facts, could reasonably be described as a dickhead. Of course, I’m not naming any individual – Alcopal is, after all, a multi-national product, and can be pushed to the public by anyone who can afford it, just as it can be taken by any member of the public who can afford (and is stupid enough) to buy it at the present time if they so choose.
EDIT 3/9/2012: Some of the comments reacting to a post about Alcopal on another blog typify the mental capacity of the sort of people Alcopal is aimed at. If you told them the earth was flat they’d believe it if they thought there might something in it for them.
I’m surprised that no one yet has come up with any factual data from the labs. This one comes closest so far. However, as far as I know alcohol is absorbed from both the stomach and the intestines, yet they talk only of the stomach. And it repeats the claim that the pills are “herbal” and contain “carbon”. They contain Simethicone – which is less “carbon” than coal, petroleum spirit, or creosote for painting fences.
I updated an article a few days ago which explained the changes made at least a year ago to the DSA’s internal guidance document (DT1). I explained that they had added a paragraph telling their examiners that if a candidate “cross[ed] their hands” or “[didn’t hold] the wheel at ten to two or quarter to three” they should not be marked down with faults.
I explained that this was not a change, but an addition – a clarification for its own examiners.
I also think I explained clearly enough that Driving: The Essential Skills (TES) had never previously stated that using the pull-push method was the only acceptable way to steer, nor had it ever implied that you would fail your test if you steered in a different way. It simply presented the method as an ideal one – which, when you consider the vast majority of learners, it is.
The implication that you would fail your test for not using pull-push has previously been the domain of the instructor-who-thinks-he-knows-it-all (of which there are many), and the examiner who is doing his job wrong (of which there were very few, but a sufficient number nonetheless to keep the former group going with its misinformation).
So it was amusing to read – yet again – that TES has apparently “dropped all reference on how to steer” and the implication that DT1 has changed completely to suddenly allow other methods of steering. Neither TES or DT1 have done any such thing.
Let me state again that for as long as I can remember, not using the pull-push steering method on test has NOT been marked as a fault. There MAY have been some examiners (quite possibly failed instructors who jumped ship, and who carried the misinformation with them) who saw it as such, but THAT is what the DSA was addressing when it added clarification to its internal DT1 document. And the removal of pull-push as a recommended method in TES is a lamentable move, since many instructors appear to be interpreting it as a statement that you SHOULDN’T use pull-push in vindication of their pre-held negative views about anything the DSA “tells” them to do.
It’s possible that TES has been altered partly in readiness for the official introduction of “coaching” to driver training. Coaching – and the equivalent euphemism, “client centered learning” (CCL) – is misunderstood by most instructors, which obviously means they all consider themselves experts in the subject.
In actual fact – and as the DSA itself points out – CCL is “intended to build on your existing skills” should be “integrate[d] into your existing teaching”. It simply includes “new” subjects that provide the material for learners to drive safely and responsibly (e.g. issues surrounding driver fatigue and the use of alcohol or drugs). For some of us, I doubt that it will add too much that is genuinely new. The new syllabus is aimed at those who literally “only teach people to drive”
But going back to steering, I mentioned in the previously updated article that a good footballer can play “keepy-up” for hours on end – but he seldom has any cause to do it when he is playing a match. However, the skills required to play “keepy-up” are his bread and butter, and without them he would not be a player of a very high standard. Oh, he could thrash his way around the field, and use his muscles and brawn to pole-axe opponents, but that would simply be a mask to hide his lack of proper skill.
The same is true of steering. Being able to pull-push requires very specific coordination skills, and possessing those skills means you are in better overall control.
When I get absolute beginners, nearly all of them cannot steer at all to begin with. Initial attempts are met with us going very wide or too tight around bends and corners. When I explain pull-push, and get them to try it using my diary as a pretend steering wheel, many of them can’t initially get the hand movements synched. But once they get it – and I mean, just ONCE – they have the key and can apply it to their steering. It’s exactly like those wooden Chinese puzzles that you have to take apart and reassemble – initially, you don’t know what to do, but once you know the first move the rest follows.
I’m seeing a lot of the “experts” in CCL suggesting that when a new learner gets in the car they should be allowed to work out how to steer for themselves!
This is absolute rubbish. If you do that, the learner is likely to hit the kerb (and on either side of the road), veer towards other vehicles (parked or moving), or even towards pedestrians (including children). It is no wonder you get the chavvy boy-racers flinging their cars on to roundabouts, around bends, and everywhere else if they’ve had teachers like that.
The correct application of CCL in the case of steering would be to explain the basics maybe using pull-push as a model, make sure they can use pull-push at least haltingly by practising, and then allow a degree or two of freedom (hand-over-hand, one-handed, etc.) as longas acceptable control is maintained.
After all, you don’t teach children to swim by pushing them in at the deep end and standing back. It seems these CCL “experts” would do just that, though.
I saw this story in the newsfeeds. It’s in the Wirral Globe, and it reports how several headstones were damaged in a cemetery by a learner driver who lost control. Since one of them was that of a soldier killed on active duty, the hyenas are out in force.
Let’s just consider a few things. First of all, the story doesn’t specify whether the “learner” was with an ADI – so taking proper lessons – or out with his/her mother, father, or just his mates.
Secondly:
[Cllr Davies, the wannabe politician who has just discovered his calling in life, said]… I saw the outcome of the online survey done by the Globe which showed that people have called for it to be banned.
People HATE learner drivers for no other reason than that they are idiots. What the hell did Cllr Davies expect a “survey” – carried out in the wake of the desecration in question – to reveal? Still, at least it’s provided him with some work and a possible leg up to the next level.
If there is going to be any ban, it should be for ALL drivers, and not just learners. Learner drivers cause infinitely less damage to these places than “normal” drivers do – and that includes those going there to actually grieve, and not just using the place as a short cut or a place to eat their McDonalds or to “make out”.
Now read the part about repairing the stones:
Council officers contacted families of the five memorials affected, explaining that the memorials will all be restored or replaced via a claim on the driver’s insurance.
The “driver’s” insurance? So that means it wasn’t a proper driving instructor.
The Wirral Globe, Cllr Davies, and all the hyenas ready to swear that their lives have been ruined as a result should bear that in mind before they start egging driving school cars.
Cllr Davies doesn’t seem that clued up on grown-up politics, either. He ought to consider the possible discrimination aspect if only learners are banned from public places.
Incidentally, the idiot supervising the learner – whatever or whoever he or she is – should be taken to the cleaners for being rubbish at what they do. But the names on the headstones have absolutely nothing to do with any ban – though unfortunately, that appears to be the driving force in this case.
Instead of piddling about with petty stuff, Cllr Davies ought to throw his weight behind getting the law changed so that learners can only be supervised by ADIs. But I guess that won’t win him anywhere near as many votes come the next elections.
A reader sent me this link to a BBC story which reports that a 100-year old man reversed across a pavement and into a group of primary school children in Los Angeles. Four of the children were critically injured, but expected to survive. Some were trapped under the car.
The driver, Preston Carter, will be 101 on September 5th. The report says:
Mr Carter told a local news station: “My brakes failed. It was out of control.” He also said he had a driving licence and would be 101 on 5 September.
When asked about hitting the children, he said: “You know I’m sorry about that. I wouldn’t do that for nothing on earth. My sympathies for them.”
Police believe he was driving out of the car park of a grocery shop, but drove on to the pavement instead of pulling into the street.
A slight contradiction there, depending on who you believe, but you can work out the most likely reason it happened for yourselves. It will be interesting to see what the US legal system decides. After all, Carter does have certain “constitutional rights”.
Remember to sign Cassie’s Law – police in the UK need powers to remove dangerous elderly drivers from the roads.
More stories are now appearing on the newsfeeds. This one is from USA Today. This one in the Salt Lake Tribune. A UK one from the GazetteLive. The Lexington Herald. The Sunday Sun. The LA Times. The Tucson News Now. The Peoria Journal Star.
I do feel a bit sorry for the guy – but he simply shouldn’t be driving at 100 years old. No one should.
This came through on the newsfeeds, and I’m sure a lot of people have read about it in the newspapers today (and as of Christmas 2015, the story has become – perhaps not surprisingly – very popular again).
The story deals with Alcopal tablets, an internet “medicine” which can allegedly make a breathalyser reading read 9 times lower than it should do. In typical fashion, the Mail’s hacks demonstrate a total lack of any academic skills and write:
The pills, which are taken before and after a drinking session, are said to prevent alcohol being absorbed through the stomach and into the bloodstream.
[Kibble said]… “Because it prevents the uptake of alcohol and gives some protection to your liver and kidneys you’re more in control.”
When I read this, my first thoughts were:
how does it work?
what’s the active ingredient?
so, does it really work?
None of this occurred to the Mail’s amateur staff, though. So when I looked up the same story in The Mirror, I got a bit more information:
The pill, called Alcopal costs £20 for a pack of 20, is said to neutralise alcohol in breath samples.
Birmingham businessman Mr Kibble, who admitted he had been caught drink-driving in 2002, bragged on his website about Alcopal “making all the difference” if a motorist is breathalysed…
“And I must stress that these tablets do nothing to improve the performance of a driver who has been drinking.”
I’m not sure where the Mail got its own information from, but it sure ain’t the same as what the Mirror said – and both purport to be quoting the comedian who sells the tablets (and who looks like (and admits to) he knocks a few back anyway). Neither source seems the least bit interested in whether it really does work, and are happy to go on what the seller says.
While we’re on the Mirror story, note the moron, Karel Reil, in the comments. He thinks it’s a good idea. I wonder why?
In the Mail story, Kibble is quoted as saying his lawyers have checked the tablets and they’re not illegal. Well, it’s not illegal to harvest Unicorn horns, either – but I’m pretty certain it would become so if Unicorns actually existed. Kibble is just on borrowed time, since he will be directly responsible for the death of the first person killed by any piss artist who uses these things and then drives.
The active ingredient is called Simethicone. It is an antifoaming agent used to suppress gas in the stomach. It’s an ingredient in Alka-Seltzer and other antacid products. It also comes in some hair conditioners as a glossing agent.
It’s worth bearing in mind that anything which prevents absorption of substances through the stomach or intestinal walls can also do the same thing with other medicines. Some antibiotics specifically advise against taking any antacid product during treatment as absorption is affected.
At £1 per tablet, and supplied in a tiny plastic container, I suspect that you’d need a hell of a lot of these to absorb the alcohol in a keg of beer, because that “nine times lower” line suggests that you can drink 10 pints and give a breath reading that looks like you only drank one! So it’s highly likely that the effect is just a masking one to fool the breath testing machine (the effect on other medicines, of course, could still be significant).
Let’s face facts here. If you really could drink a vat of beer, take a tablet, and come up stone cold sober, someone much bigger than Kibble would have jumped on it a long time ago. I mean, it isn’t as if this hasn’t been looked into for all kinds of reasons.
In any case, the average piss head is hardly going to be happy necking beer without getting drunk – which would have been his primary objective when he went to the pub in the first place. That’s why alcohol-free beer doesn’t sell. So something about what the tablets do doesn’t quite fit in, does it?
Still, Kibble has got a load of free advertising to help him on his way…
Disclaimer: The term “dickhead” is a valid description for anyone who seeks to bypass the law in some way, especially when they haven’t made sure it is safe to do so. So in this case, someone selling a product which fools the breathalyser whilst leaving the drinker pissed in order to drive a car without being pulled can legitimately be labelled a “dickhead”. Similarly, anyone who buys such products in order to bypass the law (i.e. to fool the breathalyser) whilst knowing full well that they’re pissed can also legitimately be labelled a “dickhead”.
EDIT: The hits on the blog have gone through the roof since I first posted. I think most people are just interested in bypassing the law (only two out of hundreds have asked about the ingredients). If I’d have linked to Kibble’s website (which I deliberately didn’t), I’m sure it would have been clicked to death.
This Sun story today won’t be of interest to all the chavs out there who think they’ve found a miracle pill, and who wouldn’t care who they killed as a result of being off their heads, but some people just might find it educational.
The Sun story has a photo of the pills. I’m prepared to stick my neck out as a chemist here and say to anyone reading this that there is no way on earth something that small can physically stop all the alcohol in umpteen pints of beer or shots from getting into the blood stream. Knowing what the composition of Simethicone is, I can also assure people that there is no way it can prevent the body from absorbing that all of that alcohol, either. Simethicone is pretty inert pharmacologically, and it can only have any meaningful action on the actual contents of the stomach and gut. Its usual mode of action is to reduce the painful pressure formed by small gas bubbles by making them join together into bigger bubbles – resulting in burps or farts!
All Alcopal is likely to do is confuse the breath tester, which is what one of the original stories said it did when quoting the salesman behind it. If you drink 10 pints, you’ll still be pissed – even if the breath machine says you’ve only had one.
EDIT: This ITN story has a screenshot of the website. It appears that Kibble is claiming that it DOES stop alcohol being absorbed from the stomach and intestines. That’s not what he said to the Mirror – although reading it again, he might have been trying to be funny.
Trust me when I say that you’d need a shovel full of the stuff to absorb the alcohol in several pints of beer or to line the stomach – and that’s assuming that it even does either of those things. And I say again that the typical piss head won’t want to spend money if he can’t get drunk. He could buy alcohol-free beer for that.
EDIT: It would appear that the tablets being sold are made in India. The only relevance of that is that they are probably costing fractions of a penny to make. And even though there is no clinical trial research to bankroll, Kibble is selling them for £1 a pop, or £20 for a small tub. He’s also hawking them as “herbal” or “natural”, which is not correct – Simethicone doesn’t come under that heading.
EDIT: So far, I’ve not been able to locate any American information regarding the “ban”. Every news source in the entire world is just quoting exactly what is said in the tabloids over here without adding anything new.
However, Simethicone is identified as a teratogen – it can potentially cause birth defects – according to one article, though others say it is safe. Another article identifies side-effects such as hypotension, fever, weakness, nausea, and vomiting.
This could explain why it was banned in America, and why drug companies dropped it. There’s no way they would take risks like that, and the dosage levels for the purpose intended may well have had some effect on the conflicting reports on teratogenicity. The product being sold over here could cause birth defects according to at least one source. These include heart defects, extra fingers and toes, and problems with the urinary tract (hypospadias) according to the same source.
It’s available in most stores. Go to the confectionery section and look for Smarties or M&Ms. They work just as well. An added bonus is that they’re cheaper than the branded alternative.
If you are seriously thinking of using this stuff, get professional help fast.
A: No clutch — B: Clutch pedal fully down — C: Clutch pedal fully up
I noticed the search term ‘adi clutch explained’ used to find the blog.
In my lesson plans I have various drawings I can use to explain parts of the car and driving. This is the one I use when I’m explaining the clutch on the Controls lesson.
Basically, in diagram A (if there was no clutch), as soon as the engine starts (and the car is in gear) the drive shaft starts trying to turn the wheels. This would either make the car move forward or make it to stall if it was still in gear and you tried to stop it with the brakes.
In diagram B (with the clutch pedal fully down), the drive shaft is broken and each end of it has a clutch plate – which can be thought of as being like two flat discs coated in hard-wearing material. The actual construction of a real clutch is far more complex, but this simplification still holds true. With the clutch pedal is pushed down, the two plates are pulled apart so that the engine is effectively disconnected from the gearbox and wheels. The plate connected to the engine (in orange) is spinning at several hundred rpm when idling (I point out the rev counter at this stage), but the one connected to the gearbox/wheels (green) is either stationary, or only driven by the movement of the car’s wheels.
In diagram C (clutch pedal fully up), the two plates are forced hard together as if there was no break in the drive shaft at all.
I then explain that if the clutch is lifted gently, the point where the plates just begin to touch is called ‘the bite point ‘, and that this is the secret to controlled driving. At the bite point, some of the energy from the engine is transferred to the wheels. How much is transferred depends on how much the plates are touching, and with good control you can inch forward on an upward slope, roll back, and even hold it dead still without stalling. If you can hold it still, you can literally do anything – it is ultimately the Secret to Driving. I demonstrate this with no gas and then get them to do it, moving off in the process (also with no gas) – it gets them involved quickly instead of just listening to an hour of lecturing. When we then look at moving off and stopping properly, they see how much more robust it is with gas.
I have an exercise where I get them driving up a fairly steep hill in a quiet estate near me, then take their foot off the gas and depress the clutch until the car rolls to a stop, then quickly find the gas/bite to hold it stationary on the hill without stalling. After a bit of practice they can do it without any rollback at all.
It’s amazing the effect this has on people who stall a lot. If I believe what pupils who have taken lessons before tell me, not many of them have had this explained in any detail (a pupil once told me they just had to pick it up from driving around).
One piece of advice: don’t be an anorak and try to explain the detailed workings of a genuine clutch. You’ll confuse most of your pupils rather than impress them.
It starts off by saying that research at Plymouth University has shown that elderly drivers are no more likely to die in road accidents than 20-year olds. Without saying so outright, there is obviously an implication about older drivers being no worse than younger ones.
But the “study” also found that older people are five times more likely to die as pedestrians (being hit by cars). I’m not sure what this implies.
The leader of the “study” said:
You shouldn’t assume that your granddad should avoid getting behind the wheel because he won’t necessarily be safer walking down the street.
Well, it’s obvious, isn’t it? This “research” shows clearly that old people have lived longer than younger ones! Oooh. And that winter is coming.
Seriously, I haven’t got a clue what either the Australian source or the amateur nerds at Plymouth University are trying to say. All I know is that there is a worrying trend towards bad statistics these days. Too many A* GCSEs a few years ago, I think.
Another Telegraph article asks if older motorists are unfairly penalised. The short answer is, no – they bloody well aren’t!
Penalised, maybe. Unfairly? No.
All you have to do is look at what happened to Cassie McCord and Neil Colquhoun to see that any penalisation is based on sound facts. If you search this blog on the word “elderly” you’ll find examples of injuries also caused by older drivers.
Joan Bakewell – a TV personality I used to have the hots for when I was younger (look, it was an “older woman” thing”, all right?) – is 79, and when she travelled to Malta she wasn’t allowed to hire a car because the rental companies have a maximum allowed driver age of 75 in Malta. She says:
I was furious because people age at different speeds. It’s seriously discriminatory; there shouldn’t be an age limit. I have no problem having a medical or driving test to prove I’m a competent driver.
They might age at different speeds, Joan, but when they get older the relative rate of ageing increases. You might get someone who is 90 who is a better driver than someone else who is only 20 – but on average, everyone who is 90 is a worse driver than everyone who is 20! That’s just because they are 90.
That’s why they are penalised. It’s a damage limitation thing.
instructor (i.e. an ADI).
I’ve 
lay “keepy-up” for hours on end – but he seldom has any cause to do it when he is playing a match. However, the skills required to play “keepy-up” are his bread and butter, and without them he would not be a player of a very high standard. Oh, he could thrash his way around the field, and use his muscles and brawn to pole-axe opponents, but that would simply be a mask to hide his lack of proper skill.
