The Shropshire Star reports the following results of a survey.
Top 10 driving tunes
1 The Who – My Generation
2 Queen – Don’t Stop Me Now
3 Steppenwolf – Born to be Wild
4 The Prodigy – Firestarter
5 David Bowie – Heroes
6 Kings of Leon – Sex on Fire
7 Bruce Springsteen – Born to Run
8 Black Eyed Peas – I Gotta Feeling
9 Elbow – One Day Like This
10 Take That – Never Forget
I’m reasonably with them up to no. 7, but after that… well…
In any case, the whole list is nonsense. Everyone knows that THIS is the best driving song. EVER. Click the play button to listen…
It’s the silly season, so in the absence of any real news, you have to make it up (not me, but other people).
Confused.com appears to be at a bit of a loose end. It reports that 25% of drivers name their car. Most see it as female.
I must confess, back in the days when I had cars which were likely to go wrong at the most inconvenient times, such cajoling as “come on, girl” and “come on, babe” did escape my lips on more than one occasion.
I can’t imagine for one moment why something which was stubborn, unreliable, contrary, liable to break down, and so on wore a feminine persona better than it did a masculine one.
This article at diabetes.co.uk says that the DVLA is bringing forward amendments to the rules about diabetics and driving.
The original changes were brought about by an EC directive, and basically say that if someone can prove their fitness to drive then they can gain their licence. They will need to meet certain requirements and have annual independent medical checks. They will also have to have at least a three-month historical glucose level record held on a meter which has a memory function before they can apply.
The regulations are specifically targeted to those wanting to drive group 2 vehicles (HGVs and PSVs), but the article reports that they could impact on assessment criteria for Group 1 vehicles (ordinary cars and motorcycles).
As you can imagine, this has got a lot of people wetting themselves in excitement. But what it really shows is how badly a lot of people understand statistics.
Until very recently, IE was the deafult browser installed on computers. People with above average IQs would have been the ones most likely to install another browser. Likewise, people with above average IQs would be the ones most likely to want to install another browser.
This would mean that there would be a slight shift from the norm, and there would be a slight tendency for those with above average IQs to be using browsers other than IE. This is borne out by the fact that the results for Chrome, Firefox, and Safari…
…were very slightly above average. Camino, Opera and Internet Explorer with Chrome Frame were scored “exceptionally” high.
As the article reports, changing browsers is something typically done by computer geeks.
Further evidence that they’ve all got the wrong end of the stick comes with…
Within the group of IE users, version 6 users score lowest, while users of version 8 do rather better.
That’s because users of IE6 have probably just sat with the default setup since 2001 (and probably still have Windows 98 running), and aren’t even aware that there are updates to either the OS or the browser.
it has been suggested that individuals on the lower end of the IQ scale tend to keep using outdated versions of antique web browsers.
This suggests that they set out to prove this premise. And in their conclusion, they say:
The study showed a substantial relationship between an individual’s cognitive ability and their choice of web browser.
That last sentence highlights the massive weakness of the survey from a statistical viewpoint. It isn’t a matter of “choice” of browser - which would be a positive action - It’s down to not doing anything at all to change from the default. So, although it is clear that their IS a tendency for those using IE to have lower IQs, it isn’t because they chose it. It is because they didn’t know how to change or (or that you could).
For the record, my IQ is above 150 (the test I did some years ago only went up to that). I use IE9 through choice. I have Chrome if I need it, and I’d install any of the other browsers if I needed those. I don’t need them, and I’m not trying to make a statement – the main driver behind switching from IE for most geeks.
And also for the record, if you look at browser usage statistics – and I mean global ones, not those from the highly skewed geek websites – IE still (in 2011) has nearly about 45% of the market share, with Firefox the closest rival at 30% (in Europe, it’s 50:50).
This article from The News of Portsmouth is interesting [dead link removed]. The author is a reporter for the publication.
The article is titled “There are some things your parents can’t teach you”, and is the author’s personal opinion regarding driving lessons – first with her dad, and then with a driving instructor.
I recently posted an article about private practice, and gave some examples of the kinds of things that can happen to make it… well, not very useful.
I’ve also got a shed load of stories about the family arguments caused when a parent or partner tries to teach a learner.
One current pupil goes out with his dad. After his first time out, I asked him if they’d ended up arguing – he couldn’t wait to unburden himself over how his dad shouted at him, always found fault, told him to do things differently to the way I’d taught him, tried to teach him a “better” way of parallel parking (but couldn’t explain how he – with 30 years experience – judged positions and when to steer, and so created massive confusion), and so on.
A while back, I’d arranged for a pupil’s husband to sit in the back on a lesson so he could see what to look for. At the end of the lesson, I wagged my finger theatrically and said:
Now promise me that you WON’T fall out over this!
My pupil replied:
You’re too late! We already have!
They were apparently not on proper speaking terms that day because of a lesson he’d taken her on the night before (and with hindsight, it explained the look on her face if he said anything during that lesson).
And another current pupil is often in a bad mood because he’s had an argument with his mum after she’s pointed something out while they’re driving to or from school that day.
I could give loads more examples, but the point is that as well as private practice sometimes being of poor quality due to the supervising driver not being necessarily a good driver or a good teacher, there are also the underlying “issues” that frequently exist within families which can prevent even good supervision being received well (i.e. there is no “detachment”)
Anyway, back to this article. The authour comments that although lessons are expensive they should still be a legal requirement becuase parents don’t have the training or detachment (see my comment above)necessary to do the job. She says that yelling at your kids on the street is one thing, but yelling at them when they are in control of the 2-litre family car is something else.
She mentions that things can go wrong – and cites the example of the mother accidentally killed by her daughter in a car park in an accident, but says others are lucky to get away with bumps or scrapes.
She concludes by saying that she believes there should be a retest every 5 years, more than 3 points for speeding, and lifetime bans for drink driving.
I agree fully with her comments, and the reference to the tragic accident involving that mother and daughter is very pertinent indeed.
Mind you, a serial commenter called Ripcords Ghost doesn’t. He or she thinks that the article is an “advertorial” and the reference to the mother who was killed is “very distasteful”.
I’m not really sure how this is “news”. The back of my copy of the Highway Code and other DSA books clearly says it is published by TSO (The Stationery Office), and that’s where I buy my stuff from usually.
So quite why anyone has seen it necessary to announce that TSO has won the contract isn’t clear. I guess they mean they have retained it.
Or maybe, TSO had it – and the DSA was forced to go through a ridiculously expensive and time consuming tendering process to satisfy some lame-brained bureaucrat somewhere, just to confirm what was already the case.
This is incredible. An American story via the newsfeeds reports that State Troopers in Louisiana responded to a call from a concerned motorist regarding a pick-up truck being driven erratically on the Interstate (motorway).
When they stopped it, they realised the driver was an 8-year old boy. His 4-year old sister was in the back seat, and his father – Billy Joe Madden – was drunk and asleep in the passenger seat.
The boy was driving from Hattiesburg (Mississippi) to Dallas (Texas). The distance is 490 miles, and would take 8½ hours. I’ll repeat that – 490 miles and 8½ hours!
Half of you wants to laugh at such a bizarre situation. However, the father was arrested on the following counts:
child desertion
parent allowing minor to drive
open container (alcohol)
no child restraint (two counts – the boy wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, and the younger girl had no restraint)
The children were handed over to the American social services until a family member could collect them.
…all your bits and pieces, too! I couldn’t resist that (ZZ Top, if anyone’s wondering).
The Daily Mail reports that from tomorrow (Sunday?) you can’t get a new driving licence unless you declare whether you will donate your organs or not.
Apparently, critics reckon it is a first step to organ donation becoming compulsory.
I can’t really see what the big deal is. The question has always been there, so now you have to answer it – otherwise it’s the same as not filling in your surname or something: it is void and won’t be processed. The article reckons people often left it blank or “missed it”.
Somehow, it has become a big political issue. Tory MP Peter Bone manages to bamboozle with this statement:
I don’t remember this being discussed in Parliament and what they are saying is, “We’re going to stop you getting something you’re entitled to and ask you about something which is not relevant at all to what you’re applying for”…
It doesn’t apply to everyone. I may not need a new licence, so I won’t answer the question. It’s Big State gone mad.
Uh-huh! But anyway, if ever I see the question on a form, I just fill it in. Easy, really.
Update: Mind you, I’m not convinced by the London Evening Standard’s attempts to associate the issue with the war on Iraq or Libya! A little OTT, I think.
I think it’s up to ME to decide whether I donate my organs or not. Not the London Evening Standard, or anyone else.
This story is covered by both the Telegraph and the Daily Mail. It makes you wonder how long the DSA can withstand the strain of so many pointless FOI requests by the media.
This one trumpets:
More than 100,000 driving tests nearly ended in a crash [Telegraph}
Emergency stop: 112,000 driving tests almost ended in a crash last year [Daily Mail]
The reality is rather banal. Around 1.5 million tests were conducted, and just under half were passes. So, almost the same as the year before, actually. But the Mail and the Telegraph are trying to work an angle out of it.
Let me just explain something. When a pupil goes to test, they are allowed to make a maximum of 15 driver errors. A typical driver error might be something like braking a little too harshly, or perhaps steering a bit abruptly. Or it might be passing a parked car a little too closely.
If the pupil keeps repeating the same fault, then the examiner will probably decide that it is serious enough to warrant a fail – so you can’t get all 15 driver faults for the same error.
Likewise, something that might be classed as a driver fault – like not looking over your shoulder before driving off just once when there is no one is coming – could easily become a serious fault if someone IS coming, or even a dangerous fault if someone is right at the side of you. Likewise, getting a bit close to parked cars can easily become serious if it is too close, or dangerous if you clip someone’s mirror.
If the examiner has to use the dual controls, grab the steering wheel, or even verbally correct an error, it is marked under “ETA” (examiner took action) and is a fail.
Much of the time, if a pupil commits a serious or dangerous fault then the examiner has to get involved. You could say that if he didn’t, then an accident of some sort could have been the outcome. This is just the way it is. It’s no big deal.
Except to the media.
The Mail is just about wetting its knickers when it says:
Nearly 112,000 hapless would-be drivers fail their driving tests because they are involved in near misses…
Many crashes were avoided by examiners taking control of the car according to figures released from the Driving Standards Agency (DSA)…
Incorrect use of mirrors led to over 200,000 candidates being failed, with more than 30,000 cases being classified as dangerous…
I’m sorry, but they’re just stating simple facts here. It’s like saying “it’s raining”, and then expecting everyone to scream and take out extra insurance. It isn’t like that.
The Telegraph is not much better:
Figures released by the Driving Standards Agency showed that in many of these cases, a collision was avoided by the examiner taking control of the car…
Their article isn’t as frantic as the Mail’s, but it still acts as if people should be shocked or afraid. They shouldn’t.
The only figures that makes you sit up and take notice are the one about 339 tests in which either the candidate or the examiner was injured, and the one where the examiner was physically or verbally assaulted. The rest is just stuff. Normal stuff.
Stuart Low, 42, failed his driving test in Aberdeen, then verbally assaulted the examiner who failed him.
Low – there is a picture of him on this Evening Express link (long since dead) – was fined £80. Hard to read more as this publication is subscription – only.
It’s the silly season, so in the absence of any real news, you have to make it up (not me, but other people).
This 
An article in 
The article is titled “There are some things your parents can’t teach you”, and is the author’s personal opinion regarding driving lessons – first with her dad, and then with a driving instructor.
This is incredible. An 
The 
Let me just explain something. When a pupil goes to test, they are allowed to make a maximum of 15 driver errors. A typical driver error might be something like braking a little too harshly, or perhaps steering a bit abruptly. Or it might be passing a parked car a little too closely.