Google Glass To Be Banned For Use While Driving In UK

And another one bites the dust. Google has dumped Glass as of 2015.


Anyone who is interested in technology will be aware that Google Glass is a wearable computer that doesn’t make you look like a complete prat (unlike those street headphones which are popular at the moment). It comes close, but not quite. They cost around £1,000 and all the tech reviews are going to great lengths to prove that they aren’t a gimmick.

Google Glass vs Street Headphones

Since they were announced, it has been almost assumed (mainly in the American press) that people would wear them when driving cars – and that this would somehow be perfectly OK. Even the link above glibly talks of the GPS capabilities of the phone they tether to and navigation using Google Maps, without any reference to the fact that 99% of people who need that will be driving. Of course, you have to remember that America is also the place where they still can’t agree in all states that texting while you are driving is dangerous as a result of someone spelling a word wrong in the bill proposing a ban.

But it would appear that the UK has managed to nip that one in the bud even before the glasses are generally available over here (it’s an American story, hence the spelling):

Where the Republicans of West Virginia tread lightly, the Brits may stomp heartily.

The U.K.’s Department for Transport has announced that it is not in favor of tolerating drivers who wear Google’s new glasses.

The Americans (in West Virginia) have tried to get a ban and failed. It is now up for “future” debate – which means it hasn’t a hope in hell of being banned if it isn’t obvious to those people that it should be banned right now. In the UK, though, we’re a little more enlightened and can happily proceed to a ban based on common sense instead of initiating a stupid “debate” on the subject:

A Department of Transport spokesman told the Telegraph: “It is important that drivers give their full attention to the road when they are behind the wheel and do not behave in a way that stops them from observing what is happening on the road.”

He added: “We are aware of the impending rollout of Google Glass and are in discussion with the police to ensure that individuals do not use this technology while driving.”

This is good news – you can read The Telegraph article here. It’s already bad enough the number of people texting whilst driving, wearing headphones in the car (and yes, they DO have to fart about with their iPod when they do this), and fixing their satnav right in the middle of their field of view. The last thing we need is a bunch of wet-nosed new drivers reading and tweeting by voice command with a pair of these wrapped round their heads.

That American article still comes across as slightly mocking of the British stance. It cites users who say it makes them “reach for the phone less” – so would playing the bongos, but that doesn’t mean you should do it when you’re driving. Google doesn’t think wearing them behind the wheel is dangerous (obviously, that would impact sales):

Indeed, at the time of West Virginia’s move, a company spokesman told me: “We actually believe there is tremendous potential (with Glass) to improve safety on our roads and reduce accidents. As always, feedback is welcome.”

This is total bollocks. They are incredibly dangerous and cannot possibly improve safety in any way if they are worn and used while driving. And it comes as another US story tells how a bus driver on his phone drove on to a pavement and killed an 8-month old baby.

Bay Parking (Another Update)

I’ve written a couple of articles in the past to do with bay parking. One thing that keeps cropping up is how people refer to “the DSA way” and starting from a 90° angle to your final parked position. You do not have to start from 90°! You can park however the hell you want as long as you’re safe, in control, and end up in the bay (including on the line) and reasonably straight.

When I am teaching my pupils to bay park I recommend that they use the 90° method on test unless they already know how to do it using their own judgement (and sometimes, they do). However, I make it absolutely clear that when they start driving on their own there will be times when the 90° method doesn’t work. The two main examples of this are:

  • when there is no third line along from the target bay
  • when the bays are not of regulation size

I always explain how to park using other methods, but for most the easiest way is the 90° way and this definitely works in the Colwick MPTC car park. However, I’ve had a couple of tests at the new Beeston test centre in Nottingham recently and I’ve noticed that the bays do not appear to be the regulation size and the 90° method doesn’t work unless pupils have been taught specifically for those bays – or unless they know how to correct their position as they move into the bay. In fact, a pupil who passed his test today was asked to do this manoeuvre and it was only because I’d covered with him how to monitor  and adjust his position accordingly that he was able to do it perfectly. But he was an exceptional driver – and some of my other learners struggle doing that.

It’s an interesting one. ADIs love to rattle on about not only “teaching people to pass the test”, but in situations like this there is a large grey area. For many learners the manoeuvres have to be taught in such a way that they can get them right on the one attempt they get on their driving test. The driver who naturally has all the spatial awareness necessary to steer effortlessly into any space in reverse is not the norm, and the majority need a structured method that will see them through the test.

Fortunately, Language Is No Barrier To Passing The Driving Test

You have to laugh. Someone found the blog on the following search term:

is stallibf a najor or mibor

For those who don’t speak gobbledegook, this should read: is stalling a major or a minor? Fortunately, language skills are not a barrier to getting your licence. Of course, whether they should be a barrier or not is open to debate.

I’ve written about stalling on your test before. Stalling isn’t automatically a serious fault – but it could be. And it could easily turn into one if you don’t deal with it correctly and panic.

Woman In Russia Displays Her De-parking Skills

I found this video posted recently on YouTube. A young woman – who has already demonstrated how not to park by sitting diagonally in a parking bay – proceeds to demonstrate the corresponding opposite procedure of how not to de-park.

I should point out that all the action occurs in the first couple of minutes. Once she’s reversed into that other car nothing else happens. The footage is from a building CCTV system somewhere in Russia.

It’s clear that she hits the wrong pedal, then panics and doesn’t know what to do – making the situation worse. She manages to stop in time, but then panics further and hits the other parked car.

Test Pass: 26/7/2013

TickWell done James, who passed today first time with just 4 driver faults. James has only been with me for about four weeks as the result of booking an intensive course. I don’t actually advertise these because I don’t agree with intensives, but James had done an initial lesson and in spite of never having driven before he turned out to be an absolute natural.

So when his dad phoned me to ask about doing an “intensive” I agreed – this was also partly due to the fact that since my diary was quite full the lessons were actually spaced out and although we had a few of consecutive days, some lessons were several days apart. I guess this is what I’ve always referred to as “semi-intensive”, and I’m a bit more comfortable with those.

I wish all learners learnt this quickly. But everyone is different (another reason I won’t do intensives too often) and so just have to learn in their own time. Indeed, James passed his theory test within days of his 17th birthday, began lessons the same week, and has passed his practical – all within a month!

James has been one of the nicest people I’ve ever taught (mainly because he thought my jokes were funny).

Northern Ireland To Crack Down On Scam Sites

I mentioned in an article in January about how certain websites are purposely making themselves look like the official DSA site in order to snare learners when they book their tests. The same company was also pulled up again in May for other claims deliberately designed to mislead candidates. More recently, another company was also telling carefully crafted tall tales and was prosecuted and heavily fined (in that one, a “pass protection guarantee” was only valid if you scored 42/50 (the pass mark is 43 – anything else and you fell foul of the small print).

It seems that Northern Ireland is encountering similar problems – and not just where driving tests are concerned. A European Health Insurance Card is free from the NHS, yet people are inadvertently paying for them from these scam sites. Trading standards acknowledges that these sites aren’t strictly illegal, but that they do deliberately mislead and deceive.

Damien Doherty of Trading Standards in Northern Ireland said: “While the majority of these sites are legal, they are highly cynical.”

Too right they are. He adds:

It is important that companies are clear about the service they are offering, and do not trick people into paying for something that they can get for free or much cheaper on government websites.

Personally, I don’t think they should be offering any sort of service under these circumstances. It should be illegal, and driving test scam sites are a prime example. The top-dog, highest level company which actually carries out the tests (DSA, or DVA in NI) offers them at a fixed price and anyone charging more than that is a lying scammer, no matter how “clear” they make it in the small print that they’re charging a premium.

A Couple Of Australian Stories

Two stories came in on the newsfeeds, both from Australia.

In this first one, an 11-year old boy died as he was driving his sister and himself to meet the school bus and they hit a tree! You have to remember the size of Australia in relation to the UK, and when the story says he was driving “on a rural property” (i.e. a farm) you probably have thinking in terms of tens or even hundreds of acres, as opposed to the square metres it would probably be over here. But that doesn’t disguise the fact that 11-year olds and cars don’t mix for all kinds of reasons, farm or not.

And in this second story, a man was arrested whilst driving a car which had no steering wheel. He was using Mole Grips to turn the steering column. The car was being driven dangerously and had two flat tyres. It was unregistered, uninsured, and subject to an existing defect notice. The car had apparently just been involved in a hit-and-run, and the driver was found to be disqualified and he then failed the police drug test. I don’t think there was anything left for him to get wrong.

Drink Driver Jailed For Killing Passenger

Adam Pembridge, 22, was close to 3 times the legal limit and had traces of cocaine in his body when he tried to drive away from a police car and crashed, killing Joshua Williams, 20, who was in the car with him.

I can’t quite get my head around him being found guilty of “driving without due care and attention while over the prescribed alcohol limit”. He was guilty of dangerous driving whilst pissed and whacked out of his skull at the very least. He’s been jailed for 5 years.

Pembridge’s car was a Rover MGF convertible – just about the most classic pratmobile available (apart from a Corsa or any model of Audi). Even without alcohol he was an accident waiting to happen. Naturally, everyone is crowing about Joshua Williams and how nice he was, great sportsman, and so on. He was still a willing passenger in that car at 4 o’clock in the morning, and was quite possibly as drunk as Pembridge – that accident could, and does, happen to far too many young drivers who think they’re brilliant when, like Pembridge, they absolutely are not.

The solution is a curfew and strict controls on carrying passengers. And mandatory black boxes.

Verderers And Statistics

There are probably quite a few people out there who don’t know what a “verderer” is – particularly among those readers who aren’t from the UK. For all practical purposes, it is an antiquated title referring to a long-lost time. The technical definition can be found here, although I’d just like to advise overseas visitors – Americans especially – that Britain doesn’t just consist of London and places near London., and the definition deals wholly with such places.

Anyway, according to this story which came in on the newsfeeds, it appears you don’t need to be very bright to rise the the heady heights of being a Verderer’s Clerk. All you need is an acute ability to not understand statistics and their relationship to cause and effect and it seems you’re a shoe-in.

It would appear that animal deaths due to road incidents in The New Forest have risen “sharply” this year – 67 compared with 40 in the same period last year. The animals involved are primarily ponies and cattle (probably – it isn’t made clear). Sue Westwood, Clerk, says:

So far in July we have already received reports of a further 10 accidents in which four animals have been killed and two injured.

This must indicate either a complete lack of awareness or consideration for the Forest’s animals on the part of motorists driving through the Forest.

Ms Westwood seems to be under the impression that motorists don’t have any concerns about driving into one tonne of livestock at speed, and blames the toll wholly on the road user. Had she mentioned that animals might be straying into the path of oncoming traffic as a result of the extreme weather (in search of food, or because of increasing numbers) she might have made a little more sense. She might also have mentioned that the verderers she represents had been asked to do whatever they could to address this to the best of their ability, thus making it slightly less of a ridiculous accusation. She could even have appealed to motorists to take more care without laying on the blame with such a large shovel. But I would imagine that didn’t occur to her.

Once, about 10 years ago, I was driving through the Cotswolds on a 60mph road. There was a Transit van, a Ford Ka, then me. All of a sudden a herd of deer ran out from a gap in the hedge right in front of the van (deer, like most animals, don’t have any road sense, you see). We all did emergency stops, but the van had no chance and just smashed into them. The road was littered with injured and panicking deer. From what I could see at the time, a large piece of the van’s engine had fallen on to the road – and there was oil and water everywhere.

The van driver was not at fault. He wasn’t doing anything wrong. The deer, on the other hand, were.

Fortunately, down in Hampshire, people who are a little better qualified to do their jobs are also involved in the original story:

Nigel Matthews, community and visitor services manager at the New Forest National Park Authority, said a number of initiatives are running to combat animal accidents, including reflective pony collars, changing road warning signs to keep drivers’ attention, traffic calming measures and enforcement of the 40mph speed limit…

…This is a notorious high-risk route for animal accidents…

Hopefully, this more practical involvement will go some way to reducing the risk, to wild animals… AND humans in cars.

Nuneaton Examiners Jailed For Taking Bribes

Another case of examiners taking bribes and getting caught is reported by the Coventry Telegraph.

All the details are in that link, but in a nutshell, Bushra Chughtai (55) and Andrew Cursley (46) took bribes and passed test candidates who either didn’t show up or who drove so badly that the examiners had to take control of the car. In one case a candidate actually hit another car, but the test continued and they still passed.

Investigators were on to them and they were caught. Chugtai was jailed for 3 years, Cursley for 18 months, and an accomplice/fixer – Mahomed Ibrahim (47), who appears to have been an ADI from other reports – for 15 months.

There is a funny side, too. Chugtai apparently made £6,000 out of it. Cursley made about £3,600. It isn’t made clear, but Ibrahim may have made significantly more, though he doesn’t sound like the sort of person you could trust and probably no one will ever know. You can’t help wonder at the sort of mentality that puts such small sums of money higher up the list of priorities than prison and a future with almost no job prospects when they get out. Absolute idiots.