I saw this story on the BBC News website yesterday. At first, the date made me think ‘yeah, right’ – but the BBC has used some examples which would put the whole story in very poor taste if it turned out to be an April 1st prank.
Some old bloke in Ashford, Kent (Ted Relf) has apparently been told to take a sign down that he erected himself warning of potholes on the road outside his property.
Suggested Pothole Sign
But it made me wonder if a real sign warning for potholes ought to be created and erected. After all, the local councils have spent all their money on ridiculously wasteful new pedestrian islands and road layouts (if Nottingham’s City and County councils are anything to go by), so they aren’t going to be fixing the extremely serious pothole problem anytime soon.
So all they would have to do is put a few of these up and it’d save them doing anything meaningful at all for years. OK, I know that’s not much different to the way it is now, but you get the idea. They could save millions, which they could then waste on routes for cyclists and new pedestrian islands in areas where the pedestrians are too stupid to use crossings at all.
If the BBC story is true, I suspect the man in question probably did do something wrong – so much as we might smile at his antics, it is quite likely he is somehow making a political statement. People usually are when they do stuff like this.
The clocks went forward this morning on to British Summer Time (BST), and the weather – as usual – hasn’t followed the path the Met Office said it was going to yesterday (“it will get much colder and lots of places will have snow “). It’s been sunny and warm.
The nice weather, combined with it also being a weekend, has brought the chavs and other bad drivers out in force. And I’ve seen quite a few flocks of prattus spandexius out and about, carefully avoiding the cycle lanes and ignoring red traffic lights, and making a general nuisance of themselves on the busy roads.
One of my pupils gave me a laugh the other day. She’s a good driver (passed her test a while ago, but not with me), and she’s doing a Pass Plus course with me at the moment.
What A Detour
One of the routes I use when doing Pass Plus is down the M1 to Leicester Forest East Services (J21), then back up to J23, through Loughborough, then back to Nottingham via the A60 and some unclassified rural roads. When we were in Loughborough, she asked “Are we anywhere near Derby? “. Then a little later when we were in Keyworth, she asked “Are we near Colwick? “
OK. I suppose it depends how you define the word near. Loughborough is near Derby (20 miles) – as long as you work on the basis that the moon is a long way away, and compare other distances with that. And Keyworth definitely is quite near Colwick (10 miles) – certainly when compared with the Loughborough/Derby thing.
But while we were talking about that she told me what had happened when she and her boyfriend had set out to go to the Meadowhall Shopping Centre from Nottingham.
You can see from the map on the left that Meadowhall (the red dot) is north of Nottingham. About 41 miles north, to be a little more precise.
Apparently, after some time they found themselves at Watford Gap Services (the blue dot). Watford Gap is 51 miles south of Nottingham.
I told her that that was definitely going on my List Of Things To Tell Pupils in future. Like I said, she’s a good driver – but simple navigation (or lack thereof) is a real problem for many new drivers.
I’ve already mentioned one of my current learners, who insisted she couldn’t drive and look at the signs as well. Although we fixed that, if we hadn’t have done then she would have gone out on her own after passing still with the same inability to navigate in the most basic of ways.
Merging
And it’s the same with a lot of others. I was explaining to one today (not that far off test standard) that when he sees a road sign it has to speak to him in words. We were joining a dual carriageway from a slip road, and the merging sign was clearly there warning of the merge – but he didn’t respond to it, even though he saw it.
And it was the same a few miles later when we came to a roundabout. I asked him to turn right, 3rd exit (and stressed the road name so he could follow the signs and road markings). Apart from the big roundabout sign there were lane signs telling you which lane to use – but again, he just didn’t respond.
In fact, I often find that those doing Pass Plus don’t actually know what many road signs mean. Once they pass their Theory Test many of them just seem to forget the Highway Code completely.
It would certainly explain the standard of driving you see on the roads each day.
I heard this on the radio, then found the news story.
Obviously, it is tragic. What caught my attention was that Smooth Radio (in one of its rare periods of broadcasting something other than silence or adverts superimposed over the news) reported that her parents “blamed the accident on peroxide that had leaked in her car “. Indeed, if you Google the story, you’ll be inundated with such headlines as: “Tragic hairdresser killed in hydrogen peroxide explosion “, “Hairdresser Killed As Bleach Blows Up Her Car “, “Hairdresser killed as bleach bottle catches fire “, and so on.
It seems a little unfair to point out that it was the cigarette she lit which caused the fire and not the peroxide. Mind you, the parents are asking that other hairdressers be made aware of the risks – presumably about peroxide, and not smoking when you are driving.
Smoking whilst driving is far more of a risk than having hydrogen peroxide leak into your car.
Just to clarify a point: hydrogen peroxide is an oxidising agent. In itself, it isn’t flammable (it is classed as non-flammable), but it provides a source of oxygen which makes other things much more flammable than normal.
This is an old article from 2010. DSA is now DVSA.
I got this in an email alert on Tuesday:
Chief driving examiner welcomes the publication of scientific study
Chief driving examiner and director for safer driving Trevor Wedge has welcomed the publication of a new scientific tudy into how driving instructors can develop their coaching skills.
The EU-funded ‘High Impact approach for Enhancing Road safety through More Effective communication Skills for driving instructors’ (HERMES) project began in March 2007 and was completed in February 2010.
Its main aim was to create a short training course for driving instructors to allow them to develop their communication and coaching skills.
In addition, a number of coaching scenarios have been developed to enable instructors to coach in on-road training, track training and the classroom, and to meet arange of goals in the driver education process.
Since the successful 2008 consultation ‘Learning to Drive’, the Driving Standards Agency (DSA) has been working hard on modernising driver training.
Trevor Wedge said: “DSA has followed the work of HERMES closely over the past three years, and we welcome the publication of its findings.
“Coaching offers the potential to develop self-responsibility and awareness in learner drivers at a very early stage during training.”
I suppose they have to say this, don’t they? If they’re going to say anything at all, of course.
But the fact that they did say something means they really mean it. And that has me very, very worried.
Coaching is the best way to train people, but I’m worried that the coaching they are talking about here isn’t the kind you might think of from football or other sports. My biggest worry is that it turns out to be something I’ve met head on before during my days in industry.
In that case, you could always rest assured that whatever you were doing, however you taught, it was always absolutely and totally wrong until you had paid for and taken expensive courses in how to coach (and these involved role-play scenarios and all kinds of childish activities more suited to a nursery school).
I am totally in support of modernising driver training – if it improves driving skills.
I am totally in support of CPD – if it improves the standard of instruction out there (and gets rid of poor instructors).
I am totally opposed to anything which thinks it can change the way a chavvy little thug (or thugette) chooses to drive when he (she) passes his (her) test, by putting the onus on the driving instructor.
The DSA really does have to return to Earth over this and acknowledge that lunatic thugs in souped-up chavmobiles are not created by ADIs, nor are ADIs going to be able to prevent them in future. Society creates them.
ADIs have access to these people for less than 50 hours over of a period of 3000 hours of their lives (i.e., 4 months of training). No amount of “coaching” is going to stop them driving like maniacs into trees on country roads.
I’ve been looking at a few threads on various forums – this topic crops up with monotonous regularity.
Here’s the scenario: “someone” (i.e. the resident shit stirrer on the forum), has “seen” a car (i.e. knows full well the school car and the person who owns it, or considers the franchise to be a local competitor), which has ” 5 lessons for £25 ” written on it (or some other offer). He starts a new thread and everyone else pitches in with their “opinions”.
The latest incarnation of this is funny. As usual, it is running to multiple pages, and if you look at the school’s website (I’m not providing it here – they will be getting enough traffic from the site which is bad-mouthing them) their normal hourly rate is £21. Since they are based in Yorkshire, this is actually a decent going rate for a lot of towns and cities up there.
So what we have is a driving school (franchise) which charges £21 an hour when a lot of the local independents will be charging £17-20 (or sometimes less). They offer an introductory 5 lessons for £25 as a marketing thing.
Of the people to wade in with their opinions on this shocking and unprofessional advertising is one guy who has introduced a ” 6 lessons for £99 ” offer for his own school due to falling enquiries. Another one (based not far from me, as it happens) works for a school which advertises ” 3 hours for £29 “, and which charges £1.50 below the national franchise rate for this area.
Let’s just do a quick comparison, based on the assumption that a new pupil is going to end up doing 40 hours with a school before passing their test.
The original school would take £760 from the pupil for this course of lessons – including the Special Offer. And their lessons are priced at the local going rate.
The school near me would take £843 (its hourly rate is £1 more than the school from Yorkshire). Even if you leave it at this, it is hardly an end of the world situation, is it? I mean: one school brings in £83 less than another per pupil over a 3-4 month period (a normal and typical learning period)?
But apply the fact that the “superior” school is charging £1.50 below the national franchise rate for its area, and that same school would be only taking in £750.50 if it was in direct competition with the northern school. Slightly less, but – for all practical purposes – the same.
Once again, we see that most ADIs are incapable of seeing the world through anything other than their own vari-tinted, internally-mirrored varifocals!
Note: Let’s not confuse special offers with just permanently charging stupid prices that damage the industry.
This one is doing the rounds on the forums at the moment. It happened back in January on the A1 near Wetherby, just outside Leeds, and although it appears that the Police treated it simply as a normal RTA (road traffic accident) at the time, the emergence of this footage seems to have reopened the case. Not surprising, really – that lorry driver does not deserve to be out alone on foot, let alone in something that size.
It’s funny some of the comments being made on those forums. Apparently, it is a ‘hoax’ – I’d just draw your attention to the BBC story to answer that one (not to mention the other news channels which have picked it up)
One ‘expert’ insists that the lorry is in the 3rd lane – it’s clearly in the 2nd (they’re not supposed to use the third lane in the UK, so no doubt this was intended to be an attack on the lorry driver. Just a shame it was incorrect).
On another forum, another ‘expert’ points out that it is illegal to use your mobile phone when you are driving (driving instructors love this one – whenever footage appears online they always start showing how clever they are by asking how it was filmed). It is clear from the blurred view we have of the driver as the lorry passes that the passenger is doing the filming.
Only two things are certain: the lorry driver is going rather fast, and he has a car stuck in his front.
EDIT 28/05/2010: It just goes to show that you can’t make assumptions about anything. There is a story in the Daily Mirror today – the driver of the lorry, John Tomlinson, has actually been hailed a hero instead of being banned. It turns out that the woman, Rona Williams, in the car he is pushing had undertaken dangerously and had admitted this is statements to the police at the time.
The traffic commissioner, Beverley Bell, said:
“It is absolutely clear that you could not see the Clio as you were driving…
“You showed, in my view, coolness and a clear head. I feel it is entirely inappropriate for me to take away your licence.”
The online booking system for practical driving tests is moving to Directgov. That means from 9.00 am on Monday 21 March from you’ll need to visit direct.gov.uk/drivingtest to book, check, change or cancel your practical driving test.
The move means our existing system will be unavailable from 2.00 pm on Sunday 21 March. We’re sorry for any inconvenience.
You can find out more about the practical driving test at direct.gov.uk/practicaltest, or by visiting the Driving Standards Agency’s YouTube channel at youtube.com/dsagov and watching ‘Are you ready?: a guide for learners’.
I got an email alert from the DSA today containing the minutes of a meeting held to discuss the ongoing Modernising Driver Training (MDT) Project.
What I found interesting was how the chairman opened the meeting and
…encouraged members to be open and constructive and welcomed input from all.
but in the next paragraph, there was the concern raised that
…misleading information about modernisation proposals was starting to appear in the public domain, which could cause complications in the coming months. It was agreed that the only information to be published should be the formal notes which would be circulated following the meeting and possibly published in a future edition of Despatch.
I can’t help but think that some of the people and groups involved in this are frequently anti-DSA, so is it any surprise that negative reports are perhaps leaking out? The public has to get hold of information from somewhere if it is going to twist it into still more anti-DSA ranting.
But the minutes do give an insight into what is being considered and proposed for instructor training in the future.
The HERMES report is complete (I’m going to do an article on this shortly)
There is general agreement on the CPD proposals, e.g. a minimum of 7 hours CPD will be required from ADIs each year; at least half of that must be focused on the core competencies every four year period; there is concern over what sanctions would be imposed for failure to comply
The longer-term aim is to introduce a vocational qualification for future PDIs, and the current proposals are a step in that direction – those at the meeting felt that this should be prioritised
It appears that the group would like to see PDIs hold “a basic preparing to teach qualification before starting the DSA qualifying process”
This would be optional for existing ADIs
Case studies will be tested from March onwards for the ADI qualification (Theory Test), but this will not affect the outcome of the test
The group feels that there should be a limit of three attempts at the Theory Test in any two year window (at the moment there is no limit)
Some sort of commentary drive will become part of the qualifying process – the group appeared to be confused over this and requested an example (unanswered)
PSTs to be replaced with some kind of themed lesson – the group debated whether PDIs should be warned in advance to allow them to prepare (unanswered)
The ‘Pink’ trainee license will be scrapped in its current form – PDIs will have to be accompanied by an ADI at all times if they teach real pupils. It may even become mandatory to train this way
In future, Check Test booking is likely to become more the responsibility of the ADI instead of the DSA (50% of CTs are rebooked at present)
The group agreed that ADI grading needed clear descriptors of what the grades meant; was linked in with CPD; should focus on ADIs who are not performing well; should be realistic in describing competency; includes and element of self-assessment and performance on the day (the group appeared confused over “self-assessment”)
The response to the group’s concern with “self-assessment” was
Reflection and self assessment form the basis of modern learning and teaching and therefore is a skill that ADIs need to be able to develop in trainees and themselves to maximise the benefits of the new learning to drive syllabus.
This made me both cringe and break out into a cold sweat at the same time! I’ve had to live through crap like this before – it’s part of Teamworking® (read the About Me section), and it is not pleasant. In a nutshell, you have to be able to say bad things about yourself no matter how incorrect those things are just to satisfy someone you are worthy of a pay rise instead of a pay cut (or in this case, potentially keeping your green badge or not). Only saying good things about yourself is classed as negative, because whoever you are saying them to will already have negative opinions he wants you to agree with. This is just about the only part of the proposals I don’t like.
Fortunately, this is going to be discussed further – the group is obviously not happy, either.
Public information will enable people to find out information (and leave feedback) about an ADI. The group is not in agreement about whether ADI grades should be made available to the public
At the moment, Nottingham City and County Councils are peeing me off. Big time.
Since January, roadworks have been springing up all over the place. They conform to the usual standard protocol – dig a big hole, put temporary lights up to cause severe disruption, then do virtually nothing for three months. Sometimes, put a big yellow sign up several months before to warn people that you’re going to deliberately cause severe disruption for the whole of the summer.
Road Layout Near Chalfont Drive
The area around the Chalfont Drive Test Centre (Broxtowe Borough) has always had the most ridiculous road layouts imaginable. It is primarily populated by old people in those purpose-built bungalows, but to a forward-thinking council (of which ours are two such examples) this means you need a lot of cycle lanes.
I always wondered what those old people do when I’m not there.
Basically, the main roads are (or were) split into a parking zone down the left, a cycle lane in the middle, and a narrow bit left over on the right side which cars are currently allowed to use (at the discretion of the council chieftains). The speed limit is up and down like a bloody yo-yo (and bearing in mind the area we are talking about, no one follows the 20mph ones and you always have a white van stuck up your backside), there are painted hatch markings in 1 metre wide semicircles next to the kerb at junctions, chicanes, and all kinds of other things you find right at the end of the Highway Code section on road markings you won’t see anywhere except in Nottingham. To be fair, there were a few stretches where the road layout was vaguely normal.
Of course, on the rare occasions a cyclist does travel down those roads, you can bet your last dollar that they won’t be in the cycle lane. It’ll either be the pavement, or slap in the middle of the part of the road the council forgot to do something else with and left for cars to drive in. Those idiots in Spandex are the worst offenders for not using cycle lanes.
But this arrangement wasn’t complicated enough – sorry, I mean it wasn’t safe enough – for the clowns at the council offices.
I went down there last week with a pupil, and coming up to one of the roundabouts I talked her through how to do it… and suddenly found myself in the middle of two cycle lanes! Yes, two cycle lanes. They’ve now put cycle lanes all around the roundabout covering all exits, and this means that they need to have forks in those lanes – so you end up with the most bizarre combination of white lines where one cycle lane from one entry joins the lane on the roundabout, but also branches off the first exit! There are pictures of cycles all over the bloody road!
On top of that, they have removed a lane from Beechdale Road and are doing the same all the way down. From the holes that have been dug, it seems they are putting in chicanes with parking spaces between. The roundabout at the end of Robin’s Wood Road is chaotic first thing in the morning – but at least it had two lanes for people going in other directions than towards Nottingham. Not anymore, though. It’s one lane in all round.
It’s about time these morons woke up and smelled the coffee. There are millions of cars on the road, so why keep doing things that deliberately make it difficult for the majority? Why keep catering for minorities? Hardly anyone uses the damned cycle lanes, and certainly not enough to justify keep building more of them? How many people have been injured to justify reducing road capacity in an already heavily congested area?
They are on a different planet – and should be fixing potholes properly instead of wasting money like this. It isn’t as if they work nights to get it done quickly, either.
