THIS Is The Problem – Part I

COVID-19 Infections 2020 (to September)The BBC has an article titled ‘Covid: Is it time we learnt to live with the virus?’ It also has a comments section open in that story.

At the same time, there is another article resulting from today’s government announcements which says that if we don’t do something, we could be looking at 50,000 new cases a day by mid-October, and 200 or more deaths per day once that stage of the increase kicks in.

Comments left in the first article include the following:

[boycie] Just let everyone catch it. The whole country cannot be held back once again for the sake of the few.

[Nick B] …it’s very sad that people have died from this. But locking down and unlocking down continually is no answer.

[Andrew C] …lock yourself down if you want to but don’t expect everyone else to do the same.

[Point_of_view] Do you really think it is people partying and protesting outside that is causing the bulk of transmissions? The main mechanism of transmission has been in people’s homes, inside.

[Ben] Is it time we learnt to live with it? Yes. Further lockdowns are going to do so much more damage than good.

[Richard] Yes, lockdown doesn’t work.

This is a very small sample, but it illustrates the crass stupidity and selfishness of what is quite possibly the majority of the British public – the same public that has put us where we are with the second wave right now.

The first commenter, ‘boycie’, fails to recognise that it is already proven that you can catch COVID-19 again. It has also been shown that resistance (‘immunity’) in those who have had it begins to wane after just 2-3 months. In other words, there is no such thing as ‘immunity’ at all – it is so short-lived that it is of no practical benefit. He also fails to recognise that anyone who got ill the first time may well have suffered damage that means they’re now one of those with an ‘underlying condition’. For them, a second infection will probably not be as mild as the first. This character, ‘boycie’, therefore appears to be completely happy to send his parents or grandparents to their graves just so he can carry on like nothing is wrong – and all because of his stupidity and ignorance.

As I have said many times, if my parents caught COVID-19, it would almost definitely kill them. If it didn’t on its first try, it would on its second. In a civilised world, you do not play that card on purpose. You do not even consider it – even for the short time this government did at the start of the pandemic, with its ‘herd immunity’ idea. Because we now know that ‘herd immunity’ from natural infection with COVID-19 does not exist, even if the ignorant ‘boycie’ types of this world are still stuck in the past and believe that it does.

‘Nick B’ and ‘Richard’ demonstrate ignorance in a different way. The chart at the top of this article shows the infection rates for the duration of the pandemic up until nearly the end of September in the UK. It seems fairly obvious to me that if you don’t do anything to try and limit how something spreads, there is no way that a thing the size of a COVID-19 virus has any ability to choose a cyclical or wave-like approach, such as we are seeing. It just spreads wherever it can. Therefore, almost the whole reason the numbers fell after the first peak was because action was taken to try and limit it. And almost the whole reason it is rising again now is because that action was reversed last month, and people who are theoretically far smarter than a COVID-19 virus started booking holidays to Spain and Greece (and other places where it was prevalent), and caused whole flights to have to be quarantined as they shipped it back to the UK. Almost the whole reason it never fell to zero was precisely because of people like ‘Nick B’, ‘Richard’, and the prats living it up in Zante or Ibiza, who most likely flouted or ignored the rules that were brought in even in the early days.

‘Andrew C’ probably couldn’t even spell ‘epidemiology’, let alone have the first clue what it involved. If any individual is going to dodge receiving a COVID-19 bullet, they have a much better chance if there are fewer bullets flying around to start with. ‘Andrew C’s’ solution is like saying everyone can run around going ‘yee-haaa’ and shooting at whatever they want, and anyone who doesn’t like it is at fault, and should stay at home and try to keep out the way. That’s fine, as long as there are no stray bullets – like grocery delivery drivers and postal workers – going from house to house.

‘Point_of_view’, like all the others, doesn’t like being locked down or told what to do, so he tries to justify that with cherry-picked details. How the hell does he think the virus gets into a home setting in the first place? It doesn’t just magically appear out of thin air – it has to be brought in. People like these commenters, who think they know more than the scientific experts, are the cause. They’re outside, pissing around like there’s nothing wrong, nipping off to the Balearics, then coming back and not isolating. They pick it up, then they take it home. The whole household becomes infected. But then, if any of that household has the same ridiculous beliefs as the commenters here, they will also go out, and the same cycle repeats in multiple households. It’s how exponential spread of the virus occurs, and is exactly like what that prat, Layton Migas, did when he came back from Ibiza, didn’t isolate (when he should have), and caused Bolton to be locked down.

‘Ben’ is one of those whose life revolves around money – his money – and nothing else, and who resents any restrictions. He is prepared to put that money above the lives of the 50,000 who have already died, and the additional deaths that are inevitable as a result of his ‘I don’t wanna’ approach.

That’s what it comes down to with all these people. They just ‘don’t wanna’, so they come out with these pathetic and uninformed excuses.

The country is in a f***ing mess for all sorts of reasons. Right now, COVID-19 is the biggest reason. And – right now – there is no ideal solution. The government is trying to balance letting people die, with letting businesses (and individuals’ finances) collapse. It is physically impossible to support both sides of that equation, and I don’t envy anyone who has to try. Right now, there is no solution, and I wish idiots like ‘boycie’, ‘ Nick B’, ‘Andrew C’, ‘Point_of_view’, ‘Ben’, and ‘Richard’ (plus the millions of others who think they know best – even though they can’t spell or use good grammar) would stop trying.

For me, if it was a choice between my business or my parents’ lives, my parents would come out tops every time. I just have to accept that there are people who are so materialistic (or whatever their motivation) that they see it differently.

We need a vaccine.

The Second Wave Is Here – I Wonder Why?

Flightradar screenshotAs I write this, I’m looking at FlightRadar24, which shows active flights all over the world.

At 9.40pm, incoming flights include Milan-East Midlands (Ryanair). Zakynthos-Newcastle (Jet2), Skiathos-Manchester (Jet2), Kefalonia-Stansted (Jet2), Athens-Luton (Ryanair), Rhodes-Luton (EasyJet), Kalamata-Heathrow (BA), Izmir-Luton (TUI), Katowice-Birmingham (Ryanair), Larnaca-Heathrow (BA), Ibiza-East Midlands (Ryanair), Venice-Manchester (Ryanair), Istanbul-Stansted (Flypgs), Krakow-Manchester (Easyjet), Copenhagen-Manchester (Ryanair), Poznan-Doncaster (Wizzair), Kaunas-Bristol (Ryanair), Palma de Mallorca-Luton (Easyjet), Palma de Mallorca-Manchester (Ryanair), Girona-Manchester (Ryanair), Alicante-Stansted (Ryanair)… This is just a sample.

It goes on and on, and then on again some more, all day, every day.

Our idiot government locked down too late back in March.Then it opened up too soon at the start of last month. It pandered to ‘the people’ – the very same twats who are now filling these planes coming in from hotspots where there are more daily new infections now than there were at the height of the first wave.

These same twats are desperately rushing back to avoid having to quarantine. Quarantine is telegraphed by Bojo’s committee of clowns to various arbitrary future cut-off times. That means that if a country is added to the quarantine list because it has high infection rates, people have at least two days to wallow in even higher infection rates, then ignore social distancing in the cattle rush to try and beat the deadline to get back in time. There’s no difference whatsoever between someone making it back at 3.59am and someone arriving at 4.01am – except one has to quarantine and the other doesn’t. It’s a complete joke.

Then there is the issue of whether people do quarantine even when they should (government advisers have indicated that 4 in 5 people don’t). Bolton has been locked down recently, and it is suggested that one moron who failed to adhere to quarantine was at least partly responsible. It would need an incredible level of naïveté to  believe that he was unique (he has been fined), and that everyone else followed the rules. The reality is that a huge number – even the majority – don’t. Incidentally, the Boltonese halfwit was called Layton Migas.

People should not be going on holiday. Period. Argue about it – and try to defend yourself – as much as you like, but if you fly abroad for leisure and come back right now, you are an inconsiderate (and probably orange-tinted, tooth-whitened) prat like Migas, who doesn’t have a clue what this is about. Any surge in deaths as a result of this second wave, and you are part of the cause.

Hospital admissions are rising again. Deaths appear to be rising – these are usually weeks behind infection rates.

Another lockdown is almost inevitable, thanks to your Ibiza or Zante jaunt. And just think. You’ve probably been whining about how ‘the country can’t afford to lockdown’ all the way through it. The weak government gave in to you. But instead of going back to work and earning some of that money you reckon you so desperately needed, the first thing you did was blow a stack to get to Spain or Greece to top up your orange glow and wave your fat arse for some Instagram material. If you’d have saved that money from your pointless piss up in the sun, then a) a second lockdown might not have been on the cards, b) you’d be more able to absorb the financial hit if it was, and c) fewer people will have died once all this is over. I sincerely hope that if the government steps in to assist people financially in a second lockdown, they don’t pay out to people who went abroad, seeing as they were the ones who effectively made it necessary.

I started doing limited lessons again three weeks ago – I left it much later than many instructors before going back to work. For the last two of those weeks I have been warning pupils we’ll likely have to stop again with the way things are going. It looks like I was right.

DVSA: Changes To Theory Test

DVSA LogoAt the start of 2020, DVSA announced they were planning to make some changes to the theory test. Any planned schedule for that went right out of the window when COVID-19 came along. However, with things firing on two or three cylinders again, an email today gives a date for when the changes come into effect.

From 28 September 2020, candidates taking their theory tests will – instead of the current written scenario with questions – be shown a video clip and asked questions. For all practical purposes, a video of a scenario replaces the current written description of the scenario.

You still get asked the same number of questions and you still need to get the same number right in order to pass (note my comments elsewhere on the blog that if you are one point off the pass mark, you haven’t ‘failed by one’ – you’ve failed by eight). And you still have to do the Hazard Perception part of the test.

How To Remove Label Glue

Drizzling OilRegular readers will know I do a bit of cooking when the fancy takes me. The kind of stuff I cook involves any, some, or all of Olive Oil, Extra Virgin Olive Oil, Peanut Oil, Sesame Oil, Rapeseed Oil, Sunflower Oil, light Soy Sauce, dark Soy Sauce, Worcestershire Sauce, and several others.

Recently, and to simplify my use of my ingredients, I bought a pack of those long-necked ‘oil’ dispensers with silicone ‘corks’. They fit in any bottle as long as it isn’t too wide at the neck, and they work like a charm. But with the lockdown and everything, my usual source of cooking ingredients has moved online, and that means usually getting smaller bottles than I’d buy at the cash & carry or the Asian supermarkets. Typically, I buy 1L bottles of Soy, for example, but online the brand I use is only half that.

You can buy oil dispenser bottles, of course, but these too are often very small, and they’re not made of strong glass in many cases. Others are opaque and made out of porcelain, so you can’t see how much is in there, and come is silly shapes for some reason. They also cost a small fortune – more than a pack of ten dispenser nozzles if you want a decent one.

Anyway, my dad finished off a bottle of his rum and I decided to use the bottle for one of my oils. I needed to get the labels off, so I soaked it in hot water for a couple of hours, then scraped off most of the paper. Then I soaked it for a few hours more and got the rest of the paper off. And I was left with every bit of glue that was originally on there stuck firmly on the bottle (along with the RFID chip). Nothing would get it off – even that Glue Gone stuff that is supposed to shift label glue. Even scraping it with a penknife just moved it around (though that’s how I got rid of the RFID, albeit in tiny pieces).

Then I had an idea. Sodium Bicarbonate is supposed to be a miracle cleaner, so I made a 50:50 paste of Sodium Bicarbonate (aka Baking Soda) and regular cooking oil, painted it all over the glue, and left it to stand for about an hour. The oil kept it in place. Then, using the scouring side of one of those foam kitchen sponges and a little bit of Fairy Liquid and warm tap water, it just scoured straight off!

So there you go. To get rid of stubborn label glue, you need to make a paste of equal parts of Sodium Bicarbonate and oil, paint or dab it over the glue, and let it stand for a while. With a little elbow grease after that, it should come right off.

First Post-Lockdown Test

Virus graphicWell, I had my first post-lockdown test today, and she passed with six driver faults. Well done to her!

Reading some of the horror stories on social media, I wasn’t sure what to expect when arriving at the test centre. Half of me wouldn’t have been surprised to see armed guards at the gates and outside the waiting room going from some of the (probably embellished) accounts of other people’s tests.

Arriving in the car park five minutes (as clearly requested on the DVSA emails) before we were due, it was clear that alternate bays were coned-off to facilitate distancing. So we reverse-parked into one of them. Or rather I did from the passenger seat, since the pupil’s nerves meant she’d picked one with a cone in it, and with five minutes to play with there wasn’t time to piss about. She also wanted the loo.

On approaching the waiting room for the toilet, an examiner came to the door and opened it manually so she could go into the foyer, and no questions asked. The examiners are using the usual waiting room as an office so they can distance properly, and it is off limits to instructors.

One odd thing was that the pupil had to sign some sort of paper to say they were covered by insurance. Never experienced that before – and the paper was left in the car at the end of the test! The examiner wiped a few surfaces down before he got in, which is DVSA policy according to emails and the sign on the waiting room windows. I have no problem with that whatsoever, since examiners have no idea of who and what is turning up to test. In my case, I use a fogging machine to sanitise my car daily, and all my pupils that I’m currently teaching know my own isolating requirements (two have cancelled in the last week, one because she was unwell, but is OK now and it was just a sickness bug, and another is out of circulation for two weeks because his sister works at a school which has just had two positive COVID-19 tests, and although she has tested negative she still has to isolate). I noted that the test involved a satnav.

I’ve bought a waterproof cape in anticipation of being outside when it is wet at some point. Today was a beautifully warm and sunny day, so it wasn’t needed. I noticed that five out of six other instructors were sat together in two groups. I went outside the test centre compound and found somewhere quiet next to the river. My car has a tracker in it, and I can see its movement in real time, so I know exactly where it is at any time – useful for knowing when to make my way to the car park or (in rare cases) where the examiner has left it if there is a walk-back.

As my pupil returned to the car park, I made no attempt to go and listen to the debrief as I normally would, and kept my distance (as requested by DVSA in its emails). I noted that no windows were fully open – just the front ones a few centimetres. The examiner opened the car door wide as he did the debrief, but I stayed back. She gave me the thumbs up as I stood 6 metres away and shouted that she’d passed. I had to get a little closer at one point because she and the examiner wanted my opinion over taking her licence away, or leaving it with her to apply for her full licence herself. I explained that there could well be a delay in getting her new licence in the current climate, so unless she needed her provisional for ID purposes it made sense to surrender it and get things moving quickly (in any case, I pointed out she had her passport as ID if necessary). The debrief took as long as it usually does – no rush of any kind.

I gave her a sanitising wipe to wipe down contact points on her side before we switched seats for me to drive her home, while she made calls and sent texts to friends and family.

Absolutely no problems whatsoever. If it’s like this in future, the only issue is going to be the rain. DVSA doing their job, me doing mine.

Bald Tyres and Insurance Validity

Rear-end shuntThis is an old story from 2011, updated last in 2017, and again in 2020 following another surge of interest with people asking about bald tyres and insurance – particularly when they’ve been involved in accidents.

Back in 2011 in the run-up to Winter there was story about Cumbria police and the “20p test” (original media link here). I pointed out that this “20p test” does not distinguish between legal and illegal tread depth but is an arbitrary specification which appeared to have been seized upon by Cumbrian police ahead of the predicted relocation of the Antarctic to the UK that year.

Then, Lady Motor News (which doesn’t exist anymore) jumped on it and showed even though a little knowledge can be dangerous, no knowledge at all is even worse. The main thrust of the story was fine: if you have an accident where bald tyres are involved, you may find you are not covered by your insurance.20p coin and the 2.5mm border

But they then went on to say:

To ensure you’re not caught with illegal tyres, car insurance experts recommend the 20p trick. Place a 20p coin in the main tyre tread, if the rim of the coin is covered by the tread, then your tyres are legal for use on UK roads.

Technically, this is correct, but only partially – and only by accident. That’s because the correct specification for tread depth on car tyres is that they should have at least 1.6mm of depth across the central three-quarters of the tyre’s width (the bit that goes on the road), and this should be true for the entire circumference (i.e., all the way round). And there should be no cuts or bulges in the sidewall on both sides of the tyre. So, they could fail the ‘20p test’ and still be completely legal (or pass it and be completely illegal because of sidewall damage). That’s because the rim on a 20p coin is about 2.5mm wide, so the ‘test’ only shows if it is above or below this – but not by how much. Consequently, it has nothing to do with ‘being legal’.10p coins - with the dots

It might sound pedantic, but when people don’t understand something and start writing about it, it gets taken as gospel by those who know even less, but ought to know a lot more. Such as new drivers.Tread Depth - digital measuring tool

If you really can’t afford to buy a proper tyre tread depth gauge, the legal limit of 1.6mm can be measured roughly using either an old-style 10p coin with the row of dots, or a newer coin and the top of the writing around it. The dots (or writing) are about 1.6mm away from the edge of the coin. If you are anywhere near 1.6mm using this method, you need new tyres.

A proper gauge costs under £7, and any decent driver should have one. The digital ones are easily the best.

Is my insurance valid if I have an accident as a result of bald tyres?

I get a lot of hits on this search term. The short answer is NO. You are almost certainly not covered if you are driving a car that is not roadworthy, and bald tyres mean exactly that: the car is not roadworthy (it’s actually illegal).

Will I get away with bald tyres if I have an accident?

If it’s a minor prang, and no one checks your tyres as part of the insurance process, then you might get away with it. If you do, count yourself very lucky and learn your lesson.

If it’s a bigger accident, and especially if the police are involved or there is damage to property or person, you’re likely to end up being prosecuted. The more serious the accident, the more likely they are to look for what caused it – and you not stopping in time or skidding because you had bald tyres is likely to be a major factor. If this happens, you’ll get points on your licence, and quite possibly a criminal record. Your insurance will be void, and any compensation awarded to the injured parties (plus expenses) will fall to you to pay. You could even end up in prison if you have a habit of playing silly games with the Law, and the court decides enough is enough.

Is my insurance still valid if I have an accident with a bald tyre?

If the bald tyre is discovered, your insurance will almost certainly not be valid. And don’t count on it not being discovered. If you spin out on a bend, even if no one else is involved, the police are more than likely going to want to know why it happened. Once they’ve satisfied themselves you weren’t drunk, the next step will be mechanical defects. And a bald tyre is obvious to see and will be the first thing they look for.

If your car is in an accident and you have a bald tyre will the insurance sort it out?

Someone found the blog on that precise search term. It’s a bit of a silly question, since if you have bald tyres, you don’t actually have valid insurance, so why should they help you ‘sort it’ if you’re involved in an accident as a result? Some might – but your future premiums will go sky high. It’s best not to try it – just check your tyres and replace them if they’re badly worn.

Think about it. Four new tyres – cost approximately £100. Insurance before accident for 23-year-old – say £1,000 a year. Insurance after accident for 23-year-old – £2,000 plus (quite a lot plus, in many cases), loss of any no-claims bonuses, and several years to get even close to what you were paying before.

Am I covered if the person who caused the accident had bald tyres?

Tricky one, and in all honesty I don’t know. Technically, if your own insurance is void if you have bald tyres, then your insurer could refuse to pay out to the 3rd party, and that would therefore apply if you were the 3rd party. Then there are the fraudulent claims for old damage, more damage than was actually caused, inflated repair costs, whiplash, and so on.

It’s a legal minefield. If you’re in this position yourself, seek professional advice.

Michael Richards (Ought) To Receive Lifetime Darwin Award

Michael Richards - Lifetime Darwin Awards nominee, and complete twatRegular readers will know I make occasional reference to the Darwin Awards. These are actually a semi-official thing, and relate to people who are just stupid in the extreme.

My mentions are not official, but the people involved are at least as stupid – if not more so. The latest is Michael Richards, 41, who was on a flight to Tenerife. In this article, he boasts how he avoided having to use a mask on an EasyJet flight by making a tube of Pringles last for four hours.

When you read his pathetic bragging, it is clear he did it on purpose. And he comes from Huddersfield, which is in itself a forewarning of the the missing chromosome Richards is subject to.

Richards’ only defence for his stupidity – which he sees as brilliantly clever – which has prompted criticism, is to say:

they’re sitting at home in the UK in rainy weather and we’re sunning it up in Tenerife

I don’t think he understands the situation at all. All of us could be doing what he is doing. Nothing is physically stopping us, except for one small detail.

We’re not complete wankers.

When Advertising Campaigns Are Run By Idiots

CAMRA's glass designCAMRA has found itself at the heart of the latest ‘let’s be deeply offended’ epidemic with it’s choice of limited-edition glass design for this year’s Great British Beer Festival (which is being held virtually).

As you can see in the images above, it has little virus images all over it.

On the surface of it, my first thoughts are ‘meh! Big deal’. I’m certainly not one of the ‘deeply offended’ types who have been spouting off on social media about it. On the other hand, it is a pretty bloody stupid and insensitive design when you consider that in the UK alone, that little virusy thing has killed over 40,000 people (or over 50,000, depending on which figures you go by) in under six months, with all the signs that it might do it all over again this winter unless we get a vaccine pronto.

I can see the point even more if I imagine myself in the place of people who have lost family members to it (regular readers will know I’ve been doing my damnedest not to become one of them). The problem is that it trivialises something which is very serious, and which has been difficult to control all along because of… trivialisation by so many people.

After my initial ‘meh’ thought, it then immediately struck me that this was the product of unskilled, immature, and amateurish advertising people and immature and amateurish clients approving the copy.

In my own experience, the problem started in the 90s – in my case, with the advent of ‘Teamworking’. Prior to then, skilled advertising agencies were employed to develop campaigns, and they would test them on the public before moving forward with them and presenting them to the client, being very careful to avoid controversial subjects. Obviously, that was quite expensive. But ‘Teamworking’ declared that everyone could to everything, and suddenly Gothic and film noir imagery developed by skilled advertising people was replaced with ‘let’s use a smiley face and some glitter sprinkles. And the clip art that comes free with Microsoft Word. And Comic Sans font’. Approval would be given by some guy you sat next to who thought that belching loudly was the peak of humour. We’ve gone downhill ever since.

It doesn’t matter that the organiser of the festival has had COVID-19 herself, or that she says she has permanent lung damage as a result. It isn’t just about her. This is exactly what happened with the ‘Teamworking’ thing, and it is another example of crassly ill-advised and ill-timed advertising. They might have had less of a rocky ride if it was next year’s event. But this year?

I repeat: I am not offended. I can just see it for what it is – crap advertising – and there’s a good chance I’d see it even clearer if I’d lost someone to COVID-19.

Being Clueless Doesn’t Stop You Being An ADI

Although it might have a say in how long you remain one!

My article, Should I Become A Driving Instructor is quite popular – 25,000 views since I published it. It is a very long article, and some people probably don’t have the attention span to read it all, but in it I explain how an ADI’s finances work.

It’s quite simple, actually. You charge money for lessons, and you spend money to get a car, run it, keep it on the road, and keep your business afloat. What’s left over is your wage before tax and National Insurance. Anyone higher than a squirrel on the evolutionary scale will use yearly figures for comparisons, and not short-term spikes in their earnings as a guide to future profits. I mean, over a typical financial year my monthly hours worked might look something like this.Hours worked per month (typical)

It is equivalent to an average over 52 weeks (we call that ‘a year’) of about 30 hours of lessons per week. I have done busier years than this, and I have done quieter ones. And I have had more erratic ones  But this is typical – an ‘average’, if you like.

My current lesson rate is £29 per hour. So my takings for the year – my turnover, which is how much money I take from pupils – would be £45,240. But not all that money is my wage.

Right now, doing a week like that would cost me about £80-£100 or so in fuel costs (which varies depending on the cost of fuel at any given time). Over a full year, I’d have to spend about £5,000 on fuel just to be able to give these lessons.

Then there is how much it costs me to have a car in the first place. Let’s consider this in my world – and not the one populated with unicorns prancing across candy cane fields under a sky full of rainbows. The absolute minimum cost to anyone is going to be at least £30 per week to keep a car on the driveway – and that’s for an older car which never goes wrong, which in all honesty is in unicorn territory. Over a year, that would cost you over £1,500. A newer car, or one which is leased or on PCP, or from a franchise, would cost at least £80 a week (over £4,000 a year), and up to £200 a week (over £10,000 a year).

So if you subtract the fuel cost and the yearly cost for keeping even a perfect banger which never goes wrong  on the road, your theoretical wage would be £38,700. Realistically you will have a proper car – one that still reflects sunlight and has at least something inside it which is electrically powered – and your theoretical wage would be more like £30,200-£36,200.

There are other overheads you need to subtract from that, but let’s stick with this theoretical set for the purposes of this discussion.

Now, just for a moment, let’s take a totally separate path. IF I charged £50 an hour, my theoretical wage would leap to around £67,000. IF I charged £100 per hour, it would be as much as £145,000. But reality has a big say in all this.

In 2016, a survey showed the average lesson price in the UK was £24 per hour (mine was £25), with a higher range of £28, and a lower one of £23. In 2020 – and without knowing what effect COVID-19 has had yet – these figures are typically about £5 higher. I stress, these are averages, and at any time there are always some people who are charging either well below or well above the average. But when I say ‘well above’ or ‘below’, were talking a few pounds – not tens of pounds. Anyone charging double that is not doing normal lessons with normal people.

I recently saw someone claim that it was possible to ‘earn’ £74,000, and they even cited an example of someone who ‘had done it’, and that they did so working 36 hours a week over 48 weeks. Straightaway there is a problem, because 48 weeks isn’t a full year, and 36 hours per week over 48 weeks actually equates to a weekly average of 33 hours per week. That would means someone ‘earning’ £74,000 would be charging the equivalent of £43 per hour which is almost double the normal lesson rate. Alternatively – and without knowing the full details – another way of looking at it is that £74,000 over 48 weeks scaled to a full year equates to £40 an hour at 36 hours per week. This is what happens when the clueless start throwing random and incomplete figures around.

The second problem is that they are not ‘earning’ that at all. That is their turnover, which the person who made the claim admitted to later, though not initially when they were in full-on bragging mode. Turnover is absolutely meaningless unless you have someone’s detailed accounts. The worrying thing is that supposedly professional people are bandying these figures around for purposes best known to themselves, but they are totally ignorant to what it is they are actually pushing.

Someone charging anywhere near £43 an hour is not going to be driving a banger with faded paint. They will not be giving normal lessons to normal people – there will be some unique selling point (USP) they are involved with, or they will only be covering a special area with very rich clients. And if they have a cat in hell’s chance of sustaining that model from year to year even in those circumstances, they will be highly experienced to the extent they can get away with it. If they are inexperienced (or bad) instructors, even posh and rich people will tend to realise any shortcomings sooner or later.

Taking overheads into account, the person they mentioned would have been ‘earning’ at least £10,000 less than that £74,000 – even without knowing the full story. If they were using a high-spec or specialised vehicle – which is likely if the hourly rate really was £43 – it could have been £20,000 less, or even more. So it is misleading, and unprofessional to push a high figure like this as a potential salary. It is no better than me quoting a friend of mine who charges £60 an hour – he’s a plumber.

The bottom line is that most ADIs – the vast, vast, vast majority – cannot possibly charge £43 and hour. That majority is so vast that individuals who can get away with it for whatever reason are irrelevant. Furthermore, the vast majority of ADIs struggle to maintain even 20-30 hours, and that’s especially true right now. You can see my real world example, which dips between about 80 hours and 160 hours per month over a year (20-36 hours a week) even when there’s no pandemic to deal with. Back in the last recession, you could easily halve those figures for many people, and at the opposite end I once did a year where I was averaging 40 hours a week – which nearly killed me. I would never quote that year as in any way ‘typical’ – because it wasn’t, it isn’t, and it shouldn’t be. It happened by accident, and I deliberately pulled back as a result of it, hence ‘30 hours’.

You see, that’s another complication which the person boasting these figures missed. In terms of workload, an average of 36 hours over 48 weeks is precisely that – for 48 weeks, the instructor would be delivering that number of lessons. And that is hard to do, especially if it is week in, week out. If they worked 7 days a week, they’d be doing 5 hours every day (the person who made the claim said they were ‘doing 2 hour lessons’, which doesn’t quite fit). A 6-day week would be 6 hours a day – which does fit. And no cancellations, urgent appointments, or family issues? It’s unicorn territory even with that. But whatever, financially it has to be gauged over 52 weeks to make any sense in salary terms.

And I stress again the phrase ‘theoretical earnings’. In reality, an ADI has other overheads he or she will have to subtract from their turnover before they can call it their wage. These will vary for each individual – with the likelihood that someone charging £43 per hour and getting away with it will have a lot more to pay out than everyone else.

If you’re thinking of coming into this business, do not listen to poseurs who quote these outlandish figures. If there is any confusion between ‘turnover’ and pre-tax profit when they comment, walk away and blacklist them. They do not have a clue – no matter what title they give themselves.

A decent instructor teaching normal pupils should be looking to earn a proper wage somewhere around £25,000-£30,000 in 2020 (COVID-19 and Brexit effects notwithstanding) – if they’re doing an average of 30 hours and if they’re charging around £30 an hour. You can worry about USPs, rich clients, and doubling your fees later.

Oh. And ‘turnover’ is not your ‘wages’ or ‘earnings’.

Dashcams and MicroSD Cards

I first published this in 2019, but recently noticed people having dashcam issues which are likely connected with this topic. The original article follows.

A bit of advice to anyone using a dashcam. I see a lot of people complaining that theirs is playing up, and other advice to regularly reformat the card – which seems to get a lot of people recording again, at least for a while. I strongly believe that part of the problem is with the card, and not the dashcam. Specifically, people are using the wrong cards – and that’s true, even if they’re the ones their camera’s manufacturer is recommending.

I have always used SanDisk Extreme cards in my dashcams, and I have not had any problems. Extreme cards are not the cheapest, either. They’re pretty high spec. However, as a result of something I’d read online, I wrote to SanDisk and asked them if Extreme cards were OK to use in such dashcams. Here is what they replied:

Thank you for contacting SanDisk® Global Customer Care. Please allow me to inform you that for Dashcams & security surveillance cameras, we recommend to use SanDisk® High Endurance Memory Cards since these cards are specially developed for high endurance applications and continuous read & write cycles. These cards are built for and tested in harsh conditions and are temperature-proof, shock-proof and waterproof.

Also, please be informed that using Extreme or Ultra line memory cards on these devices void their warranty.

The text in that last sentence has been emboldened by me. At this point, it is worth noting that “high endurance” cards are special cards. They’re not easy to get hold of except through specialist suppliers, and your local PC World or Currys branch is unlikely to have them in stock. They cost more than normal cards.

But the upshot is that using Extreme (i.e. high-end “normal”) cards puts them under stress that they’re not designed for. It voids their warranty, but – more importantly if you read between the lines – there is a good chance they will malfunction or play up. I don’t know much about cards from other manufacturers, but I would lay odds that most people with dashcams are using the cheapest card they can get their hands on, and that means they’re not “high endurance” types – and probably not even branded. Most of the time I see people asking what dashcam to choose they always want a cheap one, and the one they end up buying often costs them less than I pay for a SanDisk Extreme card – so there’s no way they’re going to buy a card even close to that.

My current dashcam is the NextBase 612GW. It records in 4k, and on cards up to 128GB (so I get about six hours of footage in a write cycle).  I have never had any problems with Extreme cards, but after the SanDisk advice I invested in a couple of Samsung 128GB high-endurance cards. I wanted SanDisk, but at the time they didn’t do them above 64GB. However, they do now (including a 256GB one) – and they’re reasonably priced, too.

When I originally wrote this, NextBase would not enter into discussion over the matter when I told them what SanDisk had said. They recommended using Extreme cards, and were (and still are) adamant that they work. However, I have noticed in their latest camera documentation that they strongly advise use of their own branded Class 3 cards, and point out that these are more expensive because of the extra work they are required to do. They don’t provide detailed specs, though, so I can’t say if they’ve used higher-rated cards than Extreme. At least you’d be covered under NextBase’s warranty if the card failed, so you’d have that extra level of security – which is missing if you use a SanDisk Extreme card.

I don’t disagree that Extreme cards have worked well for me, and they probably do for most other users, especially when they’re new. But the niggling problems people keep reporting are nearly always card-related. NextBase isn’t doing itself any favours by recommending Extreme cards (or if it is rebranding them), because if the camera doesn’t record people immediately blame… the camera. And even if it is shown that the card is faulty – even if they have been using one that cost them nothing and came in their cornflakes – they still blame the camera.

The bottom line is that SanDisk have told me very specifically that Extreme cards are not suitable for dashcams, and that using them for such voids their warranty. You cannot get much clearer than that. And it stands to reason that if you’re doing something that voids their warranty, the chances are it isn’t actually very good for them – and they break.

Does size matter?

From the same brand, probably not directly. However, if that brand tends to cause problems at some stage, then a smaller card will be over-written more frequently, and if the problem is ultimately related to over-writing a smaller card will present problems more often.

Does the brand matter?

You get what you pay for. If you buy cheap unbranded cards, compatibility and reliability is likely to be an issue. It’s no different to buying an unbranded kitchen appliance instead of a well known make to save money. You might get lucky, but if you don’t you have warranty issues and a non-functioning device.

Some unbranded cards may be fine. But not for everyone – you have to consider who made the camera. I use Nextbase, who are a major player, and they are very sensitive to the card manufacturer (as are most cameras, except that the cheap foreign ones don’t mention it, and you have no support if you run into problems). NextBase even go so far as specifying SD card model numbers which have been tested, so some SanDisk ones work, while other SanDisk ones might not.