Diary Of An ADI - A Driving Instructor's Blog

RED Driving School Is At It Again!

24/08/2013

Not long ago, I wrote an article after RED Driving School had “released research” that revealed the startling fact that young drivers think they’re better drivers than their parents. RED’s CEO said:

“It’s good to see that young drivers are confident in their driving ability and believe that, because they’re going through or have recently been through the driving tuition and test procedure, they’re better placed to drive safely and competently.”

So this new story makes interesting reading – not least because it has appeared on every PR site imaginable, suggesting that the most important detail to someone somewhere concerns the use of “RED” in the title. Again, something as simple as playing around with a spread sheet and a data set that is in the public domain is touted as “research”.

The reports are misleading because although they refer to the 17-24 year age group, it isn’t clear if the data given refer to this group alone, or if they are for all motorists. Similarly, look at the table below – it apparently shows “accident hotspots”:

The statistics in the press release

I would just love someone to explain to me the Westminster entry. Apart from the question about why it is there at all, how the hell does it manage to get above Manchester except based on the lesser category of “number of road accidents”? Sure, this category is significant – but not in the context of the RED press release. For a location to have such a high number of accidents, but to buck the trend and have such small numbers of serious/fatal incidents, is completely overlooked in the “research”. One way or another the Westminster data are both highly significant and highly suspect, which automatically casts doubt on all the other data..

But RED’s CEO chimes in with:

Many young people are seriously hurt or killed on our roads every year and it is self evident that reducing this carnage needs to be a key objective for both Government and the driver training industry.

Research has shown that the majority of casualties in the UK are on urban roads. In 2010, a total of 98,550 casualties occurred on urban roads, with 6,500 on motorways.

Apart from stating the bleeding obvious, at no point does he explain HOW the driver training industry – or the Government, for that matter – is actually going to deal with it. The press release itself deals primarily with nonsense issues about how Manchester has made “the biggest improvement” without identifying precisely how; and how Birmingham is the “most dangerous urban area foo young drivers” without stating why. Surely, if Manchester had managed to identify, isolate, and bottle Miracle Ingredient Z-247 (read Catch-22 if you don’t know what that is) then everyone would be buying it by the truckload. Councillor Nigel Murphy (from Manchester) tries to explain:

Over the last few years we have set up dozens of 20mph zones across Manchester and we have now revealed plans to make the city’s roads even safer. This includes the introduction of Dutch-style cycle paths and bus priority lanes on major routes into the city centre.

This is complete, misinformed, political rubbish. Not one word of that in any way explains why Manchester has fallen from 1st to 10th in the rankings – it is just designed to milk to fact without understanding it. On that idiotic comment about cycle paths, any possible benefit will be completely smothered by the huge increase in the numbers of cyclists since last year – you simply cannot evaluate a change in one variable when lots of others are changing at the same time. Manchester’s “victory” results from comparing 2005 with 2011. A lot happened 9 years ago – and in the intervening 6 years – most of which had nothing to do with the current nonsense Nigel Murphy is rattling on about. And the effects of the Olympics and Tour de France (both in 2012 and 2013) have yet to be seen. This story certainly casts a lot of doubt on Manchester’s ability to stay at the bottom of the rankings once new data become available (43 accidents on just two roads over a period of about 18 months)..

The simple fact is that although Manchester may have seen a 40% reduction in its casualty rate between 2005 and 2011, we’re still talking about similar orders of magnitude in every city. Manchester’s figures just aren’t as appallingly bad as they were, that’s all.

The article also quotes RED (it doesn’t say who, but probably the CEO again):

…RED is offering enhanced lesson plans to help learner drivers not just to pass their driving test but also to be safer drivers during that critical newly-qualified phase.

This, too, is complete rubbish. All driving instructors are self-employed and no driving school can guarantee that they will all be performing to the same standard. I pick up lots of pupils who have taken lessons with other instructors – independents, local schools, and national ones (RED included) – who have certainly not experienced the “enhanced” lessons RED’s CEO is talking about. “Safe Driving For Life” is the DSA’s strapline, and ALL driving instructors should be teaching in accordance with that. If some aren’t, then unless the driving school whose name they operate under is very selective in who they take on (and most simply require a Green Badge and signs of life) they will be distributed across the entire spectrum.

If you’re still in doubt, another PR story came in at the same time – again involving RED. It refers to a deal between RED and an insurance company whereby:

…a 5% discount [is given] to all new drivers who have had 10 or more hours of professional tuition with RED Driving School. For the average 17 year-old customer, this represents a saving of around £100 on their annual premium.

This raises a huge number of questions of an ethical nature. To start with, 10 hours of lessons is not going to change how someone drives – even if the instructors were recruited straight from Mount Olympus and are fed on an exclusive diet of Ambrosia, with the threat of transfer to Hades should any of their pupils ever be involved in an accident. So is it right to offer insurance based on this?

But you also have to ask how much the average new driver is being ripped off by in the first place, when meeting such a simplistic goal is going to get you a £100 discount from a named insurer? In any case, in my experience those offering discounts are usually charging more than the rest in the first place, so there really is no discount that couldn’t be obtained by shopping around.

But the biggest question has to be how RED can make all those statements about “reducing this carnage” when it has signed a deal with an insurance company to offer cheaper insurance to drivers if they simply take a few lessons with it. It hardly seems to be a positive move towards road safety, and rather more focused on marketing.

Oh, yeah. And RED’s “research” isn’t research. Nor are current accident statistics going to be influenced (i.e. reduced) by driving instructors.

Scumbag Teen Driver Kills Pensioner

24/08/2013

DOAADI

General

A reader sent me the link for this story. Daniel Brownlee, 19, has admitted causing death by dangerous driving. It happened in North Shields, where Brownlee got up to speeds of around 104mph. His victim was Roy Toogood, 66.

Sentence will be passed in mid-September, but another interesting detail to the story (as pointed out by the reader who provided the link) is that Brownlee’s father was also in the dock. He is charged with making a false statement in order to get insurance for the vile scumbag who passes as his son.

I won’t pass comment on that yet, as the charges are still “allegations”.

I was thinking something yesterday, though. In fact, when I’m driving around I often start thinking about this kind of thing. There’s me and a pupil in a positive, life-enhancing situation (driving lesson) – but look out of the window and I see what could easily be part of a parallel universe. Dirty-looking, unshaven, hoodie-wearing people on bikes, hanging into car windows, or carrying open cans of Special Brew. It’s where they come from which can easily throw up people like the Brownlees (certainly the son, and allegedly the father).

Does The Driving Test Prepare People For Driving Alone?

22/08/2013

DOAADI

General

In the previous article, I wrote about the appalling attitude of two young drivers who believed they had managed to scrape test passes by going to “easier” test centres, having failed at “harder” ones several times previously.

There is another hot topic at the moment, which deals with the suggestion that young drivers are not adequately prepared for driving alone when they pass their tests. The allegation is complete bollocks, of course, but it wouldn’t be right to just leave it at that – without explaining why it is bollocks!

The root of the story is found in yet more pointless “survey” material, this time by the Co-operative Insurance company. They have discovered the following:

40% of young drivers in the East of England say they have had an accident while driving.20% feel this this could have been avoided if they had taken more time to learn to drive before passing their test.60% think that people should have to learn to drive for a certain period of time before taking their driving test.

To make matters worse, the Driving Instructors’ Association (DIA) is quoted:

There is no mandatory requirement to learn for a minimum period with a qualified professional instructor. There is an advisory guidelines of 46 hours, with a further 20 hours accompanied practice with a parent, but many pupils are focused on the lowest number of lessons for the cheapest price. We need to start getting parents and learners focused on what an important life skills learning to drive is, and investing in the right number of lessons with a properly qualified, professional instructor.

There IS NO “advisory guideline” of the sort. The DSA’s statistics show that typically, those passing their tests have had 46 hours of lessons with an instructor, and at least 20 hours of private practice. It is not advice, or a prediction – it’s just a measurement of what is.

Another version of the same story adds:

Almost a third of young drivers felt unprepared to drive alone when they passed their test, according to research published today.

Many young motorists feel driving lessons are failing to get them ready them for life on the road, with 29 percent of those aged 18-30 feeling unfit to drive solo when they earned their full licences.

It’s not “research”. It’s just a survey, whose results cannot be taken as absolute evidence because they are based on opinion and are highly subjective. Why are they subjective? Well, the survey didn’t seek to obtain this information, but it is a pretty safe bet that of those people questioned did everything within their power to take as few lessons as possible – and quite possibly emigrated to “easier” test centres in order to avoid having to learn anything difficult.

In addition, 29 percent felt they were not ready for night driving, 21 percent considered driving lessons did not prepare them to drive with passengers, 19 percent avoided city centres, 14 percent could not face driving in the rain and 8 percent avoided right turns.

A total of 18 percent passed their driving test after spending three months or less learning to drive and 50 percent took six months or less to pass, the survey by Co-operative Insurance found.

It’s worrying that people of the standard alluded to even got their licences in the first place, but what do these figures actually prove?

In short, nothing! The driving test has always been the first step on a lifelong learning curve. No new driver has ever driven on their own when they pass their tests – not legally, anyway – so it has always been part of the deal that the first solo drive can be a little nerve-wracking.

I remember when I passed my test. I couldn’t afford a car straight away and so it was a year between passing and going out on my own in that Ford Escort Estate I’d bought. I’d not even thought about it until that first day – but that was when I suddenly realised I was really on my own, with no one giving me directions, and no one there to hit the brakes if I didn’t. I always explain to my pupils that the first time out alone is probably an experience they won’t have anticipated.

If I remember correctly, some of my lessons were in the dark. I learned during the winter, and even my test at Chalfont Drive finished in failing light. My lessons were usually around the rush hour on weekdays, or on Saturday afternoons, and my pick up location was always near The Dolphin pub (no longer there) just off Shakespeare Street in Nottingham – right in the middle of the City Centre. And I can remember the car steaming up in heavy rain because there was no air-conditioning back then.

Speaking as an instructor now, some of my pupils start their lessons in spring and pass before summer is over (I had one a few weeks ago whose 17th birthday was 18 June, he passed his theory test 19 June, had his first lesson with me 21 June, and passed his test first time on 26 July with no private practice between lessons). On the other hand, I get a lot of pupils who only ever have lessons in winter – indeed, my first ever pupil took all his lessons in the dark! Although I do try to get them to take at least a couple of lessons at other times, it’s horses for courses. Driving in the dark isn’t difficult – in many ways, it’s easier than driving in the middle of the day – and the only problems for new drivers in the dark arise from driving too fast and not realising their own limitations. It’s not their skills, but their attitudes which are lacking.

The second news story concludes:

AA president Edmund King said: “It is worrying that so many young drivers feel the driving test does not prepare them adequately for elements of life on the road.”

It would be worrying if they truly weren’t prepared. But as it stands, they’re just whingeing about having had accidents and looking for scapegoats, when the real problem is with the attitudes they carry about with them when they’re on the roads.

More Bad Pass Rates – But You Have To Read This To Believe It!

21/08/2013

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, Driving Tests, DSA, News

You often hear ADIs going on about only teaching people the bare minimum of skills required to pass the driving test instead of teaching them how to drive properly. The DSA’s strapline is “Safe Driving for Life”. So it beggars belief when you see a story like this.

On the surface, it’s just another FOI request blown out of proportion by some local hacks. But the really frightening part is the case studies they’ve dug up.

The article reports that Failsworth test centre has the lowest pass rate in Manchester, at 39.2% (bolstered by a really funny (not) reference to the name). It points out that Hyde test centre is 16% higher than this, at about 55%. As I mentioned recently, no one is ever prepared to refer to the population demographics in the areas they are comparing. Failsworth (marked as “A” on the map), being much closer to the centre of Manchester (and virtually part of Oldham), has a much higher proportion of non-UK national citizens. Hyde (marked as “B”) is out in the sticks, even though it is still part of Greater Manchester. Indeed, it is only about 6 miles from Glossop – which is so rural not everyone has electricity there yet! The article also says that Buxton – 25 miles out into the countryside – has a pass rate of 61.4%. Obviously, higher pass rates are the story editors’ only focus – but it does illustrate my point.

But here’s the best part. They give several examples. Firstly, someone called Kate Emmott failed at Failsworth, and is now planning on taking her test at an “easier” test centre. She says that she got a “major” fault (marked as “serious” on the test sheet) for not driving in a bus lane. She says:

It was coming up to 10am and I was worried about it. I think I had a really strict tester to be honest.

If Manchester’s bus lanes are anything like the ones around here, their morning hours of operation are 7.30-9.30. Being “nearly” 10am is not the same as 9.30am, and failing to realise this is not the result of a “strict” examiner. It’s the result of being a bad driver.

Then there is the case of Emily Bleackley, who failed her test four times in Failsworth, and then passed “weeks later” in Hyde. The report says:

…her second fail last December was for ‘getting lost’, while her third attempt was scuppered when she slowed down to let a car pass. Her fourth attempt was down to bad ‘filtering’ with other traffic, she says.

So here’s someone else who cannot equate bad driving with failing your test. You don’t fail for “getting lost” – unless you get lost and then make bad mistakes. Slowing down to let people pass – probably on a busy road, since we’re talking almost the centre of Manchester – is dangerous and the sign of a frightened rabbit! And “bad filtering” almost certainly means not being aware of what others are doing, and changing lanes without proper safety checks. In spite of this, Ms Bleackley says:

…[my] instructor could not understand [my] fails either… She said she couldn’t believe I’d failed because my driving was completely up to standard. I was in tears after my tests at Failsworth.

I’m sorry, Emily, but you listed at least three good reasons why your fails were totally justified, and it is shocking that your instructor thought you were “up to standard” if you were so obviously unable to cope with other traffic. You weren’t up to standard – that’s why you failed, and for reasons which are absolutely clear. And it is worrying that you subsequently passed at a test centre where you’re shortcomings perhaps weren’t challenged. Are you going to drive exactly the way you did on those failed tests now you’ve got your licence? Like not driving in bus lanes, slowing to a crawl when you get scared, and weaving from lane to lane without checking first?

The DSA is quoted as saying:

Pass rates can be influenced by various factors. Some people may take more lessons and be better prepared for the test. Statistical factors can also play a part as the number of tests conducted at different test centres varies significantly.

However, every driving test is conducted to the same strict requirements. We train examiners to a high standard and closely monitor their work to ensure that all tests are assessed consistently across the country.

But nothing can hide the fact that some test centres – and their routes – are inevitably going to be easier, and this is always going to result in some people passing their tests when they have underlying issues with their driving. Although it isn’t the DSA’s fault, the two examples above provide clear evidence that two very substandard new drivers have been put on the roads by the system – and it is therefore the system which is at fault. Unfortunately, the system is too complex to be able to reliably identify every single variable involved, and it is left to people like Ms Bleackley and her driving instructor to open their mouths and provide the necessary pointers to where some of the faults with it might lie.

Another news story adds weight to this, and I’ll put an article about that together shortly.

Test Pass: 19/8/2013

19/08/2013

DOAADI

Driving Tests

Well done Sheila, who passed today with just two driver faults. It was also very pleasant to hear the examiner say it was a nice drive.

This was her second attempt in just over two weeks, and she would have passed the first time if it hadn’t been for an unfortunate mishap near the end – but the less said about that, the better! At least until her kids are old enough to tell them about it, anyway.

She’s been a good pupil. Always on time, no cancellations, and determined to get things right.

A New Accident Scam

16/08/2013

DOAADI

ADI, News, Training

Spurred on by the accident claims vultures who call you within 24 hours of any notifiable traffic accident, it would appear that there is an increasing number of deliberate accidents involving flashing headlights to tell you to pull out, then having someone drive into you.

Flashing headlights is only supposed to be used as a warning, but as everyone knows it is used well outside of that remit. The Highway Code says:

110

Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.

111

Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully.

The problem is that if someone flashes you to emerge in busy traffic, and if you can see that they’ve stopped, and if you can see that it is otherwise safe to emerge, then there is every reason for you to do so. If they are scammers and decide to drive into you, they could just as easily have done it if they hadn’t have flashed and had just sat there obviously inviting you to pull out. The flashing headlights thing is a red herring.

I make it clear to my pupils how they should both use and interpret flashing headlights. There’s no point saying “don’t do it. EVER”, because they will once they’ve passed, so it is important they understand how to do it properly.

And The Nottingham Road Works Become Ever More Stupid

16/08/2013

DOAADI

ADI, Transport

I recently wrote about the continuing spread of road works in Nottingham, sanctioned by the morons who run our local councils. I mentioned that Mansfield Road in Arnold had new road works, adding to the problems already on the ring road at the Aspley Lane junction, and the closure of the railway crossing on Vernon Road (leading to drivers taking detours via the ring road).

Well, I was on a lesson today and I was planning to take the pupil through Ravenshead at around 6.30pm. Remembering the road works up there, and seeing traffic backed up to the Oxclose Lane junction, I decided to detour via the Bestwood Estate and come into Ravenshead via Bestwood Village.

This would have been fine – except that the idiots have now closed Bestwood Road through the village for road works there too (resurfacing). And they think they’re clever by putting up signs at different stages warning of closures for 6 days, 3 days, and 5 days respectively. In other words, the road will be closed for TWO WEEKS in total. So there’s no way of avoiding the gridlock on Mansfield Road at all.

I repeat what I’ve said many times before. They are total, complete, and utter fools.

Update: The day after I wrote this I checked out Ruddington Lane. It is now open, but has three-way temporary lights at the South Nottingham Industrial Estate – meaning there are still big hold ups there. Unless those are removed, closing Wilford Lane on 27th August will cause chaos. Just to point out again that the work here started LAST September, and was due to last “approximately” three months. The road has been closed for ELEVEN months.

Oh yes. And there are now also three-way temporary lights on the A60 Loughborough Road at the junction with Boundary Road. The council pillocks have allowed Western Power to start work on the electricity cabling near there.

Edit: Aspley Lane improvement – comment.

Is Honest John Giving Potentially Illegal Advice?

15/08/2013

DOAADI

ADI, News, Training

This short article came through on the newsfeeds. It’s in The Telegraph, and it centres around a question posed by a reader who says that their 81-year old mother wants to return to driving after a minor stroke. The reader asks about refresher training for older people.

Honest John – The Telegraph’s “expert” – replies:

The Institute of Advanced Motorists can help with this ([website link]) and so can RoSPA. But your county council may offer this kind of course. Many do. Take a look at its website.

Any driving instructor can do this – and legally. I’ve signed off letters for such assessments myself. Unless IAM and RoSPA can guarantee that the assessment is carried out by a registered instructor, anyone else who is a member of those organisations would be breaking the Law if they charged for any such assessment. Let’s face facts: these people will not be giving such training away for free. Even “your county council” will be paying someone somewhere to do the assessment, and if they’re using IAM or RoSPA they’d better make sure that qualified and registered ADIs are being employed.

IAM and RoSPA might well be able to put people in touch with suitable ADIs, but whether that’s what they would do is another matter. On top of that, IAM and RoSPA membership does not automatically mean that someone is an expert at medical driving assessments. The majority of members of groups like these are simply anoraks who see a vastly enlarged image of themselves when they look in a mirror. These groups regulate and audit themselves, unlike ADIs who are regulated and monitored by the DSA. ADIs are licensed to take payment for their services, whereas IAM and RoSPA members are not.

At the very least, Honest John is in error for not mentioning driving instructors alongside IAM and RoSPA. His advice is potentially very misleading without much more detailed qualification.

Instructors Blame Insurers For Falling Test Bookings

14/08/2013

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, News, Training

You can’t help sense a certain irony in this report, in which “instructors” claim that the falling numbers of people taking driving tests is the fault of insurers. The driving school making the claims is one which specialises in giving lessons to 11-17 year olds. Just for the record, it charges £60 per hour – the typical cost of a lesson for adults is only £20-£25 an hour.

In an expanded story on the same topic, a mother is currently paying these inflated rates for her 12-year old on the basis that “she’s certain costs will rise by the time he’s 18”. I bloody well hope she’s right – I’d love to be able to charge £60 an hour. But there is no way that will happen, so you almost feel sorry for her for being so stupid! She doesn’t know what she’s letting herself in for by encouraging her child – because that’s what he is – to drive, when it will be another 6 years before he can do so legally. And whatever the costs of running a car in 2019, he’ll still have to pay them – so the costs she has in mind can only be those associated with learning to drive! Silly woman.

The irony comes at you on several fronts, as well. Apart from charging almost three times as much as normal instructors to teach children to drive and then bleating about costs, you have to remember that it is the 17-year old petrol heads who keep having crashes who put car insurance for their age group through the roof in the first place. Insurers charge increased premiums because of that. So encouraging even more of them to get into cars a) while they’re still under age, and b) as soon as they come of age is not going to bring those premiums down.

The problem is much deeper – perfectly illustrated by the attitude of the mother mentioned above.

The best new drivers will inevitably be found among those who have to work hard to gain a licence. Those who have it handed to them on a plate – especially when they’ve been brought up to expect that plate to be brought out whenever they want something – are more likely to have the kind of attitude that will push premiums higher still.

A Coach, A Coach. My Kingdom For A Coach.

13/08/2013

DOAADI

ADI, Funny, Training

A reader sent me an email which made me laugh out loud. Here it is in full:

Thought you may enjoy this – from the [coaching spam source] Facebook page. An ADI posts:

Just spent a 2 hour lesson with a lady who cannot tell the difference between the different pedestrian crossings plus the flashing amber light being a complete mystery to her. After driving thru quite a few and realising that the penny hadnt (sic) dropped. We pulled into the side and the rest of the lesson was role reversal where she had to explain to me about the differences. She ended up asking for pen and paper, and gave me diagrams so that I would understand the difference. She was delighted with the outcome and now knows all about the above.

Don’t know about you, but it’s stuff like that that tells me I wouldn’t be much cop at coaching!

I know that the author of the email IS good at coaching, of course. He’s a successful driving instructor. He means this type of coaching – the sickly kind that comes with a price tag attached.