Scotland To Introduce Lower Drink-Drive Limit

A Small WhiskyAn interesting story from Scotland. According to this report they are going to introduce a lower drink-drive limit to move into line with Europe. The current limit is the same as the rest of the UK (80mg/100ml blood), but they are likely to drop it to 50mg/100ml blood.

Taken at face value, the move seems to press all the right buttons. However, Scotland already has a disproportionate number of drink drivers, and all that this change would do would be to make even more of them lawbreakers.

But you are really only breaking the law if you get caught – and enforcement is going to be a real headache.

There is also the suggestion that the change has other political forces driving it, and making the limit the same as in Europe – but different from what it is in England – is a gesture of independence by the SNP and its separatist agenda. It’s designed to break Scotland further away from the UK.

The SNP is already trying to set a minimum price for alcohol. The Scottish Justice Secretary – via a spokesman – demonstrates a naïveté that would be quite cute if it wasn’t so misguided:

All the evidence shows that alcohol-related road deaths drop dramatically where the limit has been reduced to more accurately reflect when the effects of drinking impairs driving.

Well, yes. If you enforce it so that people follow it. But changing the limit will have absolutely no effect on road deaths by itself.

The minister’s naïveté was matched only by Brake – the anti-drink-drive champions –  who welcomed the change, and added that it was a start on the way to lowering the limit even further.

You have to eliminate the pissheads before you can move the goalposts.

(Note: The report is inaccurate when it refers to how much beer the limits approximate to.)

Using Your Mirrors On Your Driving Test

You often hear people say that you must move your head when you check your mirrors so that the examiner knows you’re doing it. Technically, this is completely untrue.

Only recently, I took a lad to test who was an absolute master at not moving his head, only his eyes. I’m not exaggerating, but he really only flicked his eyes. His head didn’t move even a millimetre. After his test I asked the examiner (in the lad’s presence) if he was happy with his checks because of the lack of head movement, and he said there was no problem at all.

Several years ago I had a girl who was the same. Again, she was not faulted once for mirror checks, even though she didn’t move her head one bit when she looked.

Nodding DogYou see, examiners are trained to look for the mirror checks – not specifically the head movement. There is always the possibility that an inexperienced examiner might not pick up the checks, but I’ve never come across one. Obviously, head movement removes that particular doubt – but it definitely isn’t mandatory to do the nodding dog routine.

Far more important, though, is actually seeing what is there.

A few months ago I was on a lesson with a pupil and we were doing a reverse around a corner. At one point she looked down the road straight at a council jetting truck (the ones that suck drains clean), and carried on reversing. When she’d finished, I asked her if she’d seen it. She said “no”.

And some years ago now I can remember one lad who was busy looking down at the gearstick when I said “mirrors” at a junction. I cracked up when he waved his head from side to side, still looking at the gearstick. When I pulled him over he said “I know what you’re going to say”. And he did.

And it isn’t uncommon on early-stage lessons for pupils to do mirror and shoulder checks before moving off – and then I have to use the dual controls because there is something coming and they’ve not seen it. Personally, I like it when that happens because it is easier to expand on the risks and dangers without the worry that they think you’re just nagging them (and I base that on the fact that occasionally you get a cocky one who ignores you until he screws up – then you have a huge lever with which to get your point across once and for all).

When I’m reversing my brain is shouting at me that the most important place to keep looking is the next space the car is going to occupy (i.e. behind me in the direction I’m going). Pupils, on the other hand, often push that one right to the bottom of the list, and stare aimlessly down the road in front. It’s important to get the right balance.

Remember why you’re checking your mirrors and blindspots in the first place. It’s to see if there is anything there, so you can decide how to proceed. That’s all. The head movement is irrelevant.

Not looking, or not looking properly, is a fault. Not seeing is a fault. Ignoring what you see is a fault. Actually dealing with what you see is very easy – as long as you see it!

Fake Britain: Franchises – An Update

I saw something on a forum on this subject, which I mentioned a few days ago. It was written by Louise Kirkpatrick, of Clearway Driver Training. She has kindly given me permission to reproduce it here, in full:

It’s horses for courses [smiley]

I really don’t know why the same people over and over again on forum after forum keep on getting out the “Driving School Franchises Are Evil” drum and start banging it.

We get the point – you don’t like the driving school franchise model. However, whether you like it or not, it IS a franchise no matter how you choose to twist the definition to fuel your personal bitterness. In it’s simplest definition, a franchise is the right to trade exclusively or non exclusively in an area using a “brand” owned by someone other than yourself with various rights, entitlements and exclusions via an individual agreement between the franchisee and the franchisor. There is nothing sinister about that concept at all.

We know you’d love it if someone waved a magic wand and suddenly ADIs were employees with contracts of employment and employee rights and all that stuff, but that’s not going to happen for numerous reasons. I think I read ages ago that commercial organisations (I think Tesco and Stelios the EasyJet bloke were two of them) had investigated whether running BIG driving schools on a profit making commercial basis was viable. The answer was obviously “no”.

So here in Realityville where the rest of us dwell, the driver training industry looks set to carry on as it has done with a mixture of:

* independent ADIs
* co-operative groups of independent ADIs
* national or semi-national franchises
* locally based franchises

As for the ridiculous, finger pointing and assumption making “many have gone to the wall” comment, here’s a few points that should be bourne in mind:

1) I doubt whether any franchisor has ever MADE an ADI sign a franchise agreement.
2) I doubt any franchisor has abducted any ADI off the street and held them prisoner until they agreed to join their franchise.
3) On that basis, we must assume that any ADI who joins a franchise does so of their own free will and if they have any sense, they will have done some research about the franchise, read any agreement thoroughly and considered it’s implications before they put pen to paper.
4) A franchise agreement is NOT a guaranteed passport to success or riches beyond the wildest dreams of Joe Bloggs ADI. If good old Joe hasn’t got what it takes to make a go of his business because he’s a grumpy sod, or he turns up late for lessons or any of the million and one things that might make Joe’s pupils find another ADI instead of Joe, then that’s not the fault of Joe’s franchisor.

Stop making ADIs out to be helpless fluffy little lambs being conveyed to the slaughterhouse of The Evil Franchisors who sit around doing zilch apart from counting franchise fee payments whilst cackling manically with glee and opening jars of mint sauce.

Let me tell you a little personal story…as readers may know, my husband (who is an ADI) and myself (not an ADI) run a driving school. We’ve done this since 2004. Business went well, so in 2006 we took on another ADI as a franchisee and we kept on doing this when we had more work than we could handle if we felt that we could sustain that level. We only have four franchisees and while we could take on more, we choose carefully and we only take on more franchisees if we feel we can generate sufficient work for them, or if they offer something “unique” i.e. services or skills for a different demographic that will not dilute the work available for existing franchisees. All bar one of the franchisees we have taken on since 2006 are still with us.

The person who started this thread and his comrade in arms have sneered at me more than once for referring to them as “our franchisees”, entirely missing the point that in every sense that matters they are “ours” and we are “theirs”. We are inter-dependant, each side fulfilling a need, in their case a consistent and reliable supply of work and ours for income…but there’s more to it than that. Over the years they have become not “just” franchisees or even colleagues, but friends.

A terrible thing happened 10 weeks ago. My husband and I were on holiday driving around Europe. We were in Livigno, a very beautiful, but isolated ski resort high up in the Italian Alps when, one morning, totally out of the blue, my husband at the age of 39 had 3 strokes in quick succession. He was admitted to hospital 70km away, leaving me terrified and alone. Without me asking, two of “our franchisees” put their affairs in order, got on a plane and then drove 5 hours from Zurich airport to Livigno to help us. My husband remained in hospital in Italy for over a week before flying back to the UK with an accompanying doctor, so “our franchisees” drove our car all the way across Europe and back home as our insurance company turned out to be scum.

What’s the moral of this story and why am I telling it to you? Simply that you get out of people and life in general what you put in…and the same goes for being an ADI. Indie is right for some, a franchise is right for others…and for a few, neither is right as quite simply, they’re in the wrong job and no amount of “blaming” someone else for something YOU have control over makes that fact any different.

I don’t think I need to add anything. This says it all.

Rush Get Prog Award For Clockwork Angels

Rush - Clockwork Angels AlbumThe progressive (prog) rock awards were even covered on the BBC this morning (6 September 2012). But more importantly, Rush’s album Clockwork Angels was voted best prog album of the year.

Other notable winners include Rick Wakeman (who I feel sure would have a comment of two on the title of his award, “PROG GOD”), Carl Palmer (“VIRTUOSO” – even though he’s a drummer, and it’s nice to see that what they say about drummers isn’t true), and Genesis (“LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT” – even though they’ve been a pop band since the mid 70s when Phil Collins took over vocals). I can’t remember if the voting for that Genesis category was open (so we plebs could vote) or closed (so the industry could).

Either way, you get some odd results sometimes. At least the Rush one was kosher.

Driving Examiner Strike 13 September 2012: POSTPONED

An email alert from the DSA advises that the driving examiner strike announced recently has been postponed.

We can only assume that too many PCS members were still on holiday and unable to make the event.

DSA advises that it will alert us when a new date (which there will undoubtedly be one of) is announced for the Glorious Event.

NOW REARRANGED FOR 21 SEPTEMBER 2012: See here.

Is “Black” An Ugly Word?

I had an email via the contact format the other day from some crackpot in Manchester. She had taken offence at something I wrote a while back on the subject of coaching.

In that article I was making the point that coaching is not a magic pill to cure all society’s ills, and especially not those that afflict young drivers, who as a group exhibit the worst driving behaviour and experience the most fatal accidents on our roads. I used an analogy where I referred to pasty white boys pretending to be black.

The entire paragraph was as follows – and you have to read it in context with the suggestion I was refuting, which said that “introducing coaching” to driving instruction would reduce accidents involving young people by changing how they think and behave:

As an example, if you have someone who spent their entire time at school pretending to be black in spite of being a pasty white colour (i.e. wearing a stupid baseball cap), plus a shell suit or Burberry clobber, cheap bling, BMX bike, no taste in music, their whole evenings hanging around outside the chip shop smoking, spitting, and swearing at people who walk past, and who was known to the police from about 10 minutes after he was born because of who his parents were, well, that person just might be tempted to drive in an inappropriate manner when he passes his test and buys a Corsa with 4-inch exhaust pipe and blacked out windows. His whole life to that point has conditioned him.

To begin with, the important thing is what I meant, not what some namby-pamby politically correct dipstick can contrive to read into it.

But let’s over-analyse the concept of “pasty white boys pretending to be black” for a moment.

Many years ago, I used to tippy-toe around the issue of people being black until a black friend told me that he found the term “coloured” offensive. I had been using it in an attempt to be respectful, but it taught me a valued lesson. However, one (of many) of the reasons I believed what I did was that another friend’s wife had a high-up position working for the local council, and one day she had been almost sacked for asking a black woman if she wanted her coffee “black or white”. In the 80s and early 90s you really had to be careful.

Even today, I believe I am correct in saying that the word “blackboard” is still taboo in some establishments, and “chalkboard” is used instead. Some people claim this is an urban myth, but there are plenty of nutters out there who would gladly take issue (via the contact form, no doubt) if you dared to use the taboo words.

Now, what I said about pasty white boys pretending they’re black was an allusion to gangsta rap music.

What Is Gangsta Rap?

Gangsta rap is a genre of hip-hop that reflects the violent lifestyles of inner-city youth. The genre was pioneered around 1983 by Ice T with songs like “Cold Winter Madness” and “Body Rock/Killers.” Gangsta rap was popularized by illustrious rap groups like NWA and Boogie Down Productions in the late 80s…

Gangsta rap revolves around aggressive lyrics and trunk-heavy beats. Despite its huge acceptance in the early 90s, gangsta rap has been condemned for its violent themes. Rappers often defend themselves by saying that they’re only depicting actual inner-city struggles, not promoting it…

Like it or not, the genre is predominantly covered by black rappers. It originated with black rappers. And in all honesty, only black rappers can carry off the image successfully. You don’t have to be black to be a rapper, but it definitely helps the image. Wikipedia explains:

The subject matter inherent in gangsta rap has caused a great deal of controversy. Criticism has come from both left wing and right wing commentators, and religious leaders, who have accused the genre of promoting crime, violence, profanity, sex, homophobia, racism, promiscuity, misogyny, rape, street gangs, drive-by shootings, vandalism, thievery, drug dealing, alcohol abuse, substance abuse and materialism.

This is what I was alluding to with my comment about pasty white boys pretending to be black. With hindsight, I might have said “pasty white boys pretending to be gangsta rappers”, but I’m sure the net-nanny who wrote to me would have found fault with that too. In any case, the point I was making would have been identical. And I preferred the allusory rather than the literal approach, because I’m not afraid of the “black” word. Skinny white juveniles cannot pass themselves of convincingly as rappers, but that is only an external feature that hits me every time I see it. What goes on inside is another matter entirely.

I see them every day. Spindly little white kids with over-sized baseball caps, often with one trouser leg rolled up (signifying gang membership – I saw a fat, tattooed 20-something like that last week). In a year or two’s time, I’ll be teaching them to drive, and nothing I can say or do for the three months they’re with me (for a maximum of two hours a week) will alter what they’ve been conditioned to behave like up until then. It is the image they are trying to adopt – and all that it implies, as explained in the Wikipedia quote – which is the problem.

Most rappers might be black (which is why my allusion works). But not all black people are rappers (which is why the use of the word “black” is not racist).

The crazy person from Manchester should really get a life.

John O’Groat Journal Speaks Sense

A bit obscure, but this article in the John O’Groat Journal is full of genuine wisdom.

The title – “Learning to drive does not stop when you pass your test” – couldn’t be more true. The driving test is just the first step on a lifelong learning curve.

But the comment that caught my eye was this:

DRIVING – it’s the ambition of many young people and it opens up countless opportunities. It is something we want to do from a young age. Of course then we can only use toy cars but the urge is still there. Then finally you turn 17.

This is precisely what I have been saying. Perhaps now those people who deliver lessons to children – a showy philanthropic pretence – will take note, and at least admit that their clever money-making scheme has potential drawbacks.

Fake Britain: Franchises

Someone at the test centre was telling me about an episode of Fake Britain, which looked at franchises for companies like McDonalds. I didn’t see it myself, and I can’t find it on BBC iPlayer, so I can only take her word for what was said. She said that they should have included driving school franchises because they’re “a rip-off”.

Just for the record, if you wanted to buy into a McDonalds franchise then you’d have to stump up at least 25% of the value of the restaurant – which can be anywhere between £125,000 and £325,000 – and cover the rest with a bank loan. You’d also have to pay a one-off franchise fee of £30,000. And there are ongoing costs and fees.

All this is clearly explained on McDonald’s website – along with typical annual takings of between £95,000 and £200,000 per annum – and anyone who doesn’t know what they’re getting themselves into and screws it up only has themselves to blame. McDonalds sets it out clearly and makes no guarantees.

A typical McDonalds franchisee will therefore have to find at least £60,000 as well as take out a bank loan for the remaining 75% of the restaurant’s value. McDonalds will take 5% of any sales turnover.

A driving school franchise, on the other hand, costs virtually nothing up front. You might have to place a deposit of £500 for the car (often refundable, at least in part), and there might be a notice period if you decide to leave. If you read the small print – which anyone with any sense would – you’d know this.

The problem as I see it – and this is probably why the woman I spoke with was complaining – is that many people who become ADIs are very immature (at least in the business sense). They get all excited by qualifying, sign their names to everything without thinking, and then when they decide to jump ship for whatever reason (usually greed) they start whining about the terms of the contract they signed of their own free will.

A driving school franchise is only a rip-off if it reneges on something it promised. Admittedly, you hear tales of some smaller schools promising an infinite supply of pupils (which never seems to be written down anywhere), but most of the large national schools don’t do that. However, if a school states clearly that is costs, say, £200 a week for the car, it is definitely not a rip-off just on that detail – it’s just what IT charges, and you can either take it or leave it.

I don’t know what the BSM franchise costs per week these days now that they’re part of the AA. But once upon a time it was the most expensive one going, costing well over £300 a week. Everyone who signed up with them knew this in absolutely crystal-clear terms. It was bloody expensive, but it wasn’t a rip-off because you knew everything up front.

Keeping a new car on the road as an independent ADI costs around £80 (approximately) a week minimum, and that’s before you start driving it or trying to get work. Obviously it depends on the model, but a decent car on lease will set you back by at least that amount. People often claim that it’s much less, but it isn’t – not unless you permanently drive an old car. If you’re bad at (or very selective with) business maths you can perhaps argue that in a given (and carefully chosen, if you’re an agitator with an agenda) year it has cost you less than £20, but over a number of years it will average out at much more than that (as I said, unless you drive a banger all the time – and a few do).

An independent ADI has also got to market himself. So paying a franchise another £100 on top of the basic car cost for the additional benefits a franchise brings (they do the advertising for you – often on a national scale) is a clear and sensible option some will want to take up. A newly-qualified ADI would be stupid to try and go it alone in the current climate (most fail miserably if they do).

The ignorant ones will argue that £200 a week is “too much” when you could be paying “only” £80 as in independent (or “only” £20 if you’re bad at business matters). Well, firstly it is none of their business if someone chooses to go down the franchise route – it’s a freely available option which can be taken or left as the buyer sees fit. These agitators are often just fuelling their own prejudices with their misleading and totally inaccurate “advice”. There’s no benefit to paying even £20 a week for a car if you have no work.

And more importantly, although people who buy into McDonalds franchises might go bankrupt because they can’t pay off their huge bank loans in spite of turning over hundreds of thousands of pounds a year – which is really nothing to do with McDonalds itself – a driving instructor goes bankrupt because they can’t get enough work. That can happen whether they’re independent or with a franchise – although these days it is more likely with an independent, many of whom are now joining franchises to try and survive.

The two situations are totally different.

Examiner Strike: 13 September 2012

NOW POSTPONED: See here.

The DSA has sent out an alert advising all test candidates to attend as normal for tests booked on 13th September 2012.

The PCS union – which, as you know, spends much of its time on display in the Natural History Museum in the Fossils section – has got yet another strike planned.

Once again, remember that not all examiners are backward enough to be in the union in the first place, and of those that are in it, not all of them are stupid enough to engage in strike action.

Attend your test and keep your fingers crossed. And remember that any inconvenience caused to you as a result of strike action is absolutely the fault of PCS and its participating members.

NOW POSTPONED: See here.

NOW REARRANGED FOR 21 SEPTEMBER 2012: See here.

Does Alcopal Work?

With reference to the sale of Alcopal – an internet “medicine” which claims to reduce the apparent amount of alcohol drunk when tested by breathalyser, and which I covered in this story, and updated in this one – I got to thinking about the mechanisms involved.Snake Oil label

There is a lot of confusion about what it does, how it does it, and whether or not it works. Even its current salesman can’t make his mind up whether it actually stops alcohol entering the bloodstream or if it just stops the breathalyser from measuring alcohol on the breath accurately.

There is also confusion about what it contains. The words “natural ingredients” and “carbon” have been mentioned, along with Simethicone – again, by the current salesman.

I did a bit of searching to see if there was any evidence that orally ingested materials could actually adsorb alcohol from the gut before it could get into the bloodstream. In the case of activated carbon, there was one article – a patent claim – which reckoned that carbon tablets could reduce blood alcohol by about two-thirds.

Just out of interest, that would mean five pints of beer would be measured as though the drinker had ingested less than two pints. This is remarkably similar to the claims being made by Kibble – the current salesman hawking these tablets.

The patent claim doesn’t ring true, because in the two examples it gives it says that blood alcohol levels actually decreased with time following treatment with activated carbon – the patent claim was based solidly on this. The problem is that activated carbon would have to adsorb the alcohol BEFORE it got into the blood stream, and it couldn’t have that effect AFTER it was already there except by other biological mechanisms, and carbon is virtually inert in this respect. In any case, only two subjects appear to have been tested.

More reliable papers, however, confirmed that alcohol concentrations in the blood are virtually unaffected by the use of activated charcoal. And this was a proper medical study:

…demonstrated in dogs that charcoal given at the same time as alcohol can reduce the blood alcohol concentration significantly. To study whether charcoal is of value in a clinical situation, a randomized cross-over study in two phases was conducted. Each person drank 88 g of alcohol and 30 min after either 20 g of activated charcoal was taken or the same volume of water was drunk. There were no significant differences in plasma alcohol concentrations with or without charcoal.

That’s fairly conclusive, and other papers report similar findings:

We compared the pharmacokinetic profile of ethanol with and without activated charcoal treatment. The fraction of ethanol absorbed was similar on both protocols. The mean peak ethanol concentration after pretreatment with activated charcoal was 8% greater than ethanol alone (p = 0.08). Thus oral activated charcoal does not significantly impair ethanol absorption and can be used in patients requiring oral ethanol.

And others make it clear that activated charcoal does not bind well with alcohols. And on top of that, side-effects from regular use include:

…constipation and black stools. More serious, but rare, side effects are a slowing or blockage of the intestinal tract, regurgitation into the lungs, and dehydration.

It is also not advised for use during pregnancy or for those with intestinal issues already. Unfortunately, some silly sites state categorically that it does remove alcohol from the gut in spite of the factual medical trials proving otherwise.

OK. So if Alcopal contains activated carbon, the activated carbon part definitely doesn’t work – not unless you’re a dog, or an idiot who believes every website contains only facts, anyway! And it is likely to be dangerous for a significant proportion of the population if used regularly.

As for the “natural ingredients” – assuming that these do not refer to carbon – anything “natural” (as in “plant extract” or “herbal”) is not going to do what Kibble is claiming.

As for Simethicone, I suspect that it’s anti-foaming properties are intended to reduce the amount of alcohol in direct contact with the stomach lining. I don’t think it has any power to adsorb/absorb alcohol. And it has a maximum daily dose of 500mg.

Does Alcopal work?

No.

Are you sure?

Yes.