Saturday, Sunday… Monday?

Kylie Innes, 23, passed her driving test on Christmas Eve (link long since dead). On Boxing Day (just), she was stopped by police who had seen her swerving across the A90, near Newtonhill in Scotland. She was 1½ times the drink drive limit.

The usual kind of mitigating circumstances were given – argument with mother, went for drive to clear head (at 1.35am on Boxing Day, of course), got breathalysed… the old story.

She was fined £400 and banned for a year.

It must be close to a world record. At 1.35am on Boxing Day, it must have been less than 18 hours after passing that she was stopped.

Cassie McCord

I wrote recently about the epetition set up by Cassie McCord’s mother, after she was killed by an 87-year old driver whose eyesight was dangerously impaired, but who refused to stop driving in spite of having an accident only a few days before he drove into Cassie on a pavement in Colchester.

This story came through in the feeds. A touching footnote – I’ll let you read it for yourselves.

I still urge everyone to sign that epetition.

Another Teenage Idiot

You sometimes have difficulty believing what you read – believing that people can be so completely stupid, and unable to learn from previous incidents.

This story came in on the newsfeeds (dead link). A 17-year old male from Brackley was driving a typical pratmobile – an MG Rover ZR – near Banbury, when it left the road. He had four passengers on board (this is a commercial script being played out here, remember, so you’ll have to forgive the similarity to other recent articles), all between 14 and 17.

The driver was treated for minor injuries, arrested, then bailed on suspicion of dangerous driving.

One 14-year old female passenger is in critical condition in hospital. Two boys, aged 16 and 17, are in serious but stable condition. A 15-year old girl has been released from hospital.

The previous story relates to an incident which occurred in 2010, but which has only now been heard in court. This latest one could easily end up being yet another teenage-death story when it is eventually heard.

Police are appealing for witnesses.

And Another Teenage Death-fest

Lauren Birkett, 16, was one of three teenagers killed in Mexborough (link now dead), South Yorkshire, as a result of “aggressive driving”. The others were Robert Tepper and Jonathan Scott, both 17.

The survivors in other cars involved provided evidence that was “self serving and supporting of the individuals closest to them”, and “lacking in credibility”, according to the coroner.

In English, that means they were shown to be liars.

Jonathan Scott was the driver of the souped-up Corsa which crashed. The coroner ruled that it was being driven “in a manner that exposed them to risk of serious injury or death and a collision occurred from which they died”

Due to the stupidity inherent in English Law, there was apparently not enough evidence to show that the deaths were due to “dangerous driving”.

Let me just say that again: the car was being driven in a manner exposing the occupants to serious injury or death, but it wasn’t being driven dangerously. English Law, eh? So Scott is deemed to have died “accidentally”.

The story paints a vivid picture of juvenile motoring stupidity. There was an Astra overtaking a Punto, and Scott in his Corsa followed it and lost control. All three cars were being driven in a “competitive and aggressive” way. The Astra and Punto were being driven by two of the surviving individuals (along with their passengers) who the coroner concluded were liars.

Pedestrian witnesses said:

…the cars were driving so close together it looked as if they were ‘tied by a piece of string’.

The coroner rejected evidence (i.e. the lies) that they were all driving within the 30mph speed limit.

A police spokesman said:

Jonathan Scott’s Corsa had a two-litre engine instead of the standard 1.2 litre engine.

It also had bigger brakes fitted which made it more prone to skidding under sudden braking.

It’s difficult to feel any real sympathy, seeing as it is quite possible that if one of the other cars had crashed instead the occupants of the Corsa would perhaps have taken the same line that the occupants of the Astra and Punto have in trying to cover for each other. It was simply another example of young people behaving in precisely the manner that many of them do. No doubt, all of them felt very “cool” while they were acting like idiots.

It is why their insurance is sky-high. And “warnings” about the test getting harder are a joke when you consider that this was deliberate behaviour, and not an accidental event. Insurers should start dealing with these things instead of those which they clearly don’t understand.

Fog Lights Cause 300,000 Accidents A Year

Another insurer on the publicity trail again, but Swiftcover reckons that keeping your fog lights on when they aren’t needed (i.e. almost every male driver under the age of 30) leads to “as many as 300,000” accidents and 2,000,000 near misses per annum.

The full press release includes the following figures:

  • fog lights caused 300.000 accidents in 2011
  • 2m near misses in the same period
  • 20% of young drivers leave lights on “because it looks good”

fog_lightsOn that last one… I told you so!

Other excuses were that their normal lights weren’t bright enough (but obviously, brighter than they were), and to improve visibility on poorly lit roads. Those under 34 years were most likely to have left lights on “because it looked good” (look, I told you, didn’t I?)

Someone really needs to get it across to them: they don’t look cool with fog lights on. They look like what they are – total prats.

Mind you, I’m not quite sure how Swiftcover can attribute so many accidents just to fog lights. Just as many people driver around with only one light working (so you think there’s a motorbike coming at you), and that’s far more dangerous than fog lights being on.

New Driver Killed On Bend

As if to further pour water on the “warning” in the previous story, this one came in on the newsfeeds. A tragedy already written in stone, so enduring and persistent is it becoming.

Gary Saunders was 24, and last April he was negotiating a bend when he misjudged and crashed into a tree. He had passed his test just 6 weeks earlier. The car had no defects, nor did the road, and no other vehicle was involved.

[the police are]… of the opinion that Mr Saunders misjudged the bend.

His speed may have been excessive for the conditions.

So, yet again the same script is played out, with a young and inexperienced driver going too fast – and losing the bet!

Did Gary Saunders’ performance on the Theory Test – or his revision leading up to it – have any impact on the outcome of the incident? Not one bit of it, and yet the outcome is the very thing that causes the insurance companies to shove premiums sky-high for young drivers, and then start issuing “warnings” about the Theory Test being “harder”.

Memorising Theory Test questions is not the cause of high RTA figures among young drivers. Nor is the quality of their driving lessons involved. The problem goes much, MUCH deeper than that.

Swinton Insurance: Hypocrites?

This article came through on the newsfeeds – at this stage it is just a press release. Until the tabloids get hold if it, no doubt.

The change to the Theory Test – which came into effect on 23rd January 2012 – has been known about for ages. In December 2010 it was mentioned in Despatch, and it has been reiterated several times since ( this is just one example).

In the press release… and more than a week after the event…

Swinton… is warning learner drivers about the changes to the driving theory test.

Well, that’s a good job, then. Because I’m sure driving instructors don’t do that – with it not being part of their job, and everything.

Swinton fails to understand that if the test is harder, then it is harder. It doesn’t need a “warning”, and nor is it their job to handle it. Their job is to provide massive insurance quotes for new drivers after they’ve passed – not to advise them on their training beforehand.

Steve Chelton, Claims Manager at Swinton said, “The best way of gaining knowledge of how a road works is to take plenty of lessons and make observations. Learner drivers should not rely on DVLA revision material to pass the exam; they should study the Highway Code to further their understanding of driving and apply it when they are on the roads. By doing so they are always prepared for challenges that may occur whilst driving and will become safer drivers in the long run and thus reducing the chances of an accident and a claim on their motor insurance policy.”

There is more than one way to skin a cat, Mr Chelton. Some people study hard and pass the theory test before they take any lessons at all. Others wait until they start driving, then start studying. The rest do something that’s in between.

But one thing I can assure you is that not many of them memorise all 1,000 questions without understanding a single word. That’s where you and Mike Penning have got it wrapped around your necks – because YOU don’t understand.

When you consider the size of insurance quotes for new drivers, the crocodile tears over RTA figures, and now a “warning” about the Theory Test getting “harder”, you can’t help but get a strong whiff of hypocrisy from somewhere.

The simple fact is that many people could pass the Theory Test without doing any revision at all (several of mine have). Others do the bare minimum – and resent spending even £1 on study aids. The “new” Theory Test is exactly the same as the old one – even the old one used to pick up new questions from time to time, and all we have here is rewording. It’s not like there’s a new Highway Code or anything.

Like it or not, all that matters is whether people know enough to pass the Theory Test. They don’t HAVE to read the Highway Code, and they don’t HAVE to buy study materials. Most do – but in all honesty, some of them don’t need to, and can pick up most of what they need to know from lessons and driving with their parents.

So, if anything, the Theory Test is too bloody easy.

New Drivers and Texting–They Just Don’t Get It

I was driving down Ruddington Lane in Nottingham. Just outside the old Becket school (currently being demolished because the school has moved) there is a chicane and Blue Corsa R493 OAUspeed bumps. We can only guess at whether the chicane/humps will be removed now they’re no longer needed.

I was on the side where you give way to oncoming traffic. Coming the other way – way beyond the last hump on that side (70m down the road if you measure it on Google Maps) – there was a car. On my side, a blue Corsa (reg. R493 OAU) had already stopped while I was 10-20 car lengths away from it. It could easily have gone (so much so, that it SHOULD have gone), but at this stage it was just “tut-tut-tut” and shaking your head territory.

When I pulled up behind I noticed it was occupied by two young girls. They were having a great old time – the driver was obviously texting and discussing the text with her passenger. She wasn’t aware of me behind – and she certainly didn’t see the other car flash its lights at her to go while it was STILL on the other side of that final speed bump.

The Corsa driver was of the ink-still-wet-on-licence age. Either she or her passenger live off that road, and one would hope neither of the pair’s parents condone this sort of behaviour – being significantly responsible for it in the first place.

The Corsa driver had stopped in the middle of the road predominantly to text. It was her only interest at that point. She was not aware of anything happening around her. And it is a precise illustration of what is wrong with many young drivers today, and shows why they have more fatal accidents than older drivers.

The insurance companies talk of “black box” supervision to get premiums down. Would it pick up this sort of attitude to driving? Absolutely not, and yet it is the biggest danger on our roads today.

Women Park Better?

As recently as September last year, they were reporting how women were not better at parking than men. Official data suggested that women were 7% less likely to pass their driving tests than men, and that parking appeared to be a major issue.

But you can forget all that, as that well-known source of factual information – NCP carparks – provides definitive evidence to the contrary (dead link). Of course, perhaps we shouldn’t ask how they can afford to commission such pointless studies, whilst charging exorbitant fees for their services.

NCP’s “study” (and they’re calling it “research” again) was “designed” by a driving instructor, Neil Beeson – is there no limit to our skills? – who already had an agenda, it would seem, when he said:

The results also appear to dispel the myth that men have better spatial awareness than women.

It isn’t a myth, Neil. At best, the source of the problem is not agreed, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that spatial awareness is better in men than in women. Driving instructors should be working around such problems and dealing with them – not trying to deny that they exist. To quote Wikipedia:

Men on average have a standard deviation higher spatial intelligence quotient than women. This domain is one of the few where clear sex differences in cognition appear.

Beeson also says:

I was quite surprised by the results, because in my experience men have always been the best learners and usually performed better in lessons.

I can assure you that MY experience is the exact opposite. Female learners have by far the better attitude (and personal hygiene) than male pupils towards lessons. My fastest ever learner was an 18-year old female, and my slowest a 21-year old male. If someone is obviously going to drive too fast and buy a Corsa or Audi once they pass, it is nearly always the male pupils.

But putting all that to one side, I would NEVER suggest that all women and all men conform to my own experiences on this – especially those I’ve never met, several hundred miles away, and being taught by other instructors! And I would NEVER try to create a scoring system which tried to do so, because it simply wouldn’t work.

I can think I know all there is to know about one sex, one culture, and so on… and the next pupil I get from one of those groups proves me totally wrong.

The story doesn’t go into details of how the scoring system was developed, or how subjective it was in use. One telling comment is that men…

…took an average of 16 seconds to park, compared to 21 seconds for women – and they were happier with the result, spending less time repositioning the car.

But women were quicker at finding a spot, a result attributed to the fact that men often missed spaces by driving through car parks too fast, and more of them chose to reverse in, the method preferred by instructors.

If that’s a fair summary of the results, it’s hard to see how the conclusion that women came out of it better can be drawn with any degree of certainty.

Successful parking is about getting in and getting out, and not inconveniencing others. Unsuccessful parking is about not being able to get in and get out, and getting in other peoples way. Reverse parking (as opposed to forward parking) is irrelevant. The “study” appears not to have considered these things at all.

If instructors want to do this sort of thing, then fine. But to proffer it as “research” – or in any way definitive – is wholly wrong.

Northern Ireland Black Box Scheme

The Co-op launched its “black box” scheme in the UK mainland almost a year ago. A week later, Scotland was confusing the issue with ifs and buts about its own teenage crisis.

This story just came through on the news feeds. Northern Ireland is now considering black box Black Boxtechnology to try to curb its own problems. Apparently, insurance in NI can be up to 70% higher than in the UK – which I’m sure is a meaningless statistic, since I doubt that this refers to the difference between the highest quotes in the UK and the lowest in NI (more likely, the lowest UK quote and the highest NI one).

What gets me about all these “initiatives” is that the stated target is to reduce insurance premiums.

What then happens is that once the insurance has been brought down, the little morons switch insurers (one without a black box requirement), and start driving like complete prats again.

Just like Pass Plus – when it still brought insurance down – people were doing it ONLY to get the insurance benefits. After that, they just drove like they would have done without having done the course at all. You even had “fit and proper” instructors signing it off without doing the driving, and even now you see instructors (and recently passed drivers) boasting that they “didn’t need to do much for Pass Plus because they’d already done it on their driving lessons”.

The Pass Plus syllabus is quite clear: it is additional training. Driving lesson experience cannot be included on it.

It’s also strange that NI is only “considering” doing it – and a year after everyone else. And that’s in spite of no legislation being needed to implement it.

It isn’t just the bad drivers who have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.