Question-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
Hi Phil
I must apologise for my rather incoherent last message - I'm afraid it was penned under the influence of too much alcohol. It started as an attempt to be jovial, but swiftly deteriorated into arrant nonsense. No offence was intended, and I hope none was taken. Unfortunately, no law has yet been introduced to ban drinking and writing!
The real question I had in mind was this:
After your time as a driving examiner, do you feel there were areas in which you consistently thought the candidate's instruction had been lacking - and could you suggest remedies to the average ADI?
I hope the question makes a little more sense this time.
best wishes
Phil Pepper ADI
Answer -
(Sorry for the delay-the website was down when trying to post this and I had trouble getting it away, as you have made no mention of it- I'll re-post-Just in case you did not get it.)
Your apology was not required. However, I was just off to bed when I got to read the latest one, so I would rather reply to it tomorrow,
As I must respond to links in order to get back to you, would you post another short message so that I can “Respond” to it?
Hi Phil,
Well, I think that despite expressing a dislike of “Them” you still harbour a charitable attitude.
It is in fact, the distilled wisdom of the likes of us that filters down – in statistic form – to them and the rules are constructed in simple response to that weight of evidence.
20,000 accidents caused by people being distracted with their mobile phones could inspire someone somewhere to think that a rule may be called for!
I think that the bureaucrats do a necessary job in an unnecessarily officious manner; they rely completely in the legal précis of “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” when they revise or completely change basic tenets of our lives, and expect us to act diligently in ensuring that we
are conversant with all the random changes as they occur.
As I have said before rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools, but the prolonged tendency is in every case where stupid behaviour becomes an issue then the response is Ban it! Rather than the far more sensible tactic of severely punishing misbehaviour (Driving without due care and attention) and letting the rest of the generally responsible population get on with what they have been unremarkably doing without comment or censure until then.
This legislative snowball keeps rolling on – if sufficient people irritate them enough – they will Ban it! – Simply put, eventually everything will be banned. The HC will be 2000 pages long, and Diploma's will be issued to student drivers that can remember better than 75% of it.
But the effect of burgeoning legislation is profound, the more of is there is, the less weight is attached to it by the ordinary driver, and once one falls to breaking some laws – because the are stupid and irrelevant – then it's a short step to ignoring the rest, The irresponsible motorists ignore them anyway, and they were the ones the rules were aimed at in the first place, so now we have two classes of law breakers instead of just the one.
Actually, since you mention it, I think that the subject is far from simple and straightforward, purely because the subject matter involves human behaviour, and that has never been straightforward. The problem is that the powers-that-be thinks that simple rule making will solve the problems and clearly that is not the case.
An example is that of traffic camera's, undeniably a good idea that no-one can in conscious argue against, but is nevertheless turning a substantial portion of Britain's population into convicted offenders, unless something is done soon the majority of the population will be offenders…
A learned Law Lord said a long time ago that law making in a democracy must rely on the support and good will of the vast majority of the concerned population to succeed. Criminality by definition must be confined to the minority so that the weight of the disapproval of the majority can be transferred in the way of punishment.
If the majority of a population opposes or suffers from, any aspect of regulation then clearly democracy has ceased to exist, and the regime that created the legislation must be considered unrepresentative or hostile.
Maybe this argument is a little OTT for the point, but nevertheless it is consistent, over regulation is diluted and weakened regulation and that is prone to contempt.
By an amazing flash of insight, you asked me to construct 10 rules for the HC. As you will no doubt have realized by now this is exactly my point.
Keep it simple; keep it fair, keep it logical and few people will argue with it. And punish transgressions severely to prove you mean it, but I have always believed in the judgments of Solomon in the local Magistrate to determine the punishment, because as there is a myriad of ways to break the law there is also a multiplicity of reasons why someone would break it and a centralized scale just doesn't cut it.
Enough! I am in ramble mode again.
See below what I would prefer to call the Ten Principles rather than Rules, I have always found rules to be too rigid and one rule inevitably leads to another to cover all the bits left out.
My defence is I didn't have much time to think about it so it's all off the top of my head stuff, don't laugh too long…
Regards,
Phil
The Ten Principles
1. Before driving, ensure that you are qualified, competent and fit to do so.
2. Before driving, ensure that the vehicle is legal, safe and roadworthy.
3. Know the capabilities and restrictions of your vehicle and yourself and always strive to be within them.
4. Always give your driving your undivided attention.
5. Always keep left and comply with road markings, signs and other indications that are there solely to enhance road safety for you and others.
6. Always drive at a safe speed in relation to your surroundings and your ability.
7. Regardless of priority, always be prepared to give way to avoid an accident.
8. Yourself, other traffic and the environment. You can control only one of these and so recognise that you are always in a minority control situation.
9. Respect the fact that all other road users have an equal right to be there.
10. Only stop on a road where you are not a danger or causing an obstruction.
Hi Phil,
What happened was this:
When I didn't receive the expected reply to my question I re-read it and decided - in the cold light of day - that it could have been misunderstood. It seemed best to go back to the site and write the question in a more conventional style in order to try and make it clear that it was indeed a serious question, and not me taking the subject too lightly. It appears I need not have worried, and indeed, we seem to share many of the same views.
Your 'Ten Principles' are an excellent attempt to clarify matters and I can find nothing to argue about in any of them - except perhaps for number 5 where it does not seem clear whether you mean you should always comply with all road markings (because they are put there for everyone's safety) or if you mean you should always comply with road markings that are obviously put there for everyone's safety. Hang on, I think we've been here before!
I may have been a little overoptimistic in thinking the whole thing could be covered in just 10 rules. After all, there are some basic rules that would need defining - how to turn right, how to turn left, roundabouts (but not mini-roundabouts!), pedestrian crossings, etc. But if you ended up with less than 25 rules then I think a good job would have been done. Well, a fantastic job actually!
What do you think?
Best wishes
Phil
Answer -
>After your time as a driving examiner, do you feel there were areas in which you consistently thought the candidate's instruction had been lacking - and could you suggest remedies to the average ADI?
Hmmmm… I don't think that I can simply answer this one. Instructors are just like Examiners and everyone else really, there are good one's, there are bad one's and just about every shade of competence in-between.
The overall quality improved, I think with the introduction of the ADI system, but only from the point of easing out the real shyster's and introducing a modicum of uniformity.
Looking back over my years of examining, about the only area where I was consistently irritated, was minor junction observation, or rather the lack of it.
The general impression I got whilst testing was that if one enjoyed priority through a junction then it was OK to completely ignore other traffic, because no one ever gets a junction wrong, do they?
I was known locally as the junctions b*****d, because it never did occur to the majority of them, that there was a pattern of neglect in their instruction when it was so much easier to blame a cranky Examiner. There were though, Instructor's that were smart enough to sift through the evidence and eliminate the shortcomings and improve their pass rates.
As Examiners, we are told that if our decision making stands out too much in a crowd, then it is likely to be flawed, and should be reviewed for personal bias. I think the same applies to Instructors, if the pass rate is not reflecting the normal for that centre, and the standard of instruction is basically good, then that Instructor should be looking for the flaw.
All they have to do in most cases is just ask! But as you can (hopefully) appreciate, an Examiner could never, never approach an Instructor and say, “By the way – I think your instruction isn't really up to scratch because…”. Some of us really do like our job!
Having now received your latest episode, I find myself thinking along slightly modified lines. These rules apply to whom?
If you are an intelligent, caring, responsible sort of person that does not wish to get his car dented and has no wish to dent yours either, then the 10 Principles are more than enough to get started with. There are obvious rules that anyone must know before starting out, keep left, speed limit, priority and tie-breaker situations and that sort of thing. But common sense, care and responsibility will sort out 99% of the rest.
However, if he is the type that just has to be first in line, has no social consciousness and doesn't care about the dents because he stole the car anyway, then any amount of rules are irrelevant because he doesn't care about the rules and isn't going to take any notice of them.
So who are the rules for? Are they for the brainless types that have such a hard time trying to figure out what the clutch is for? But these are the people that say they don't understand the rules, and surely if you cannot understand a rule you cannot embrace it and recognize that it is there to save your life. Assuming that you can even remember it.
So, I must conclude, that the rules are intended primarily for you and for me.
For you, to use as guidelines in teaching the art of vehicle control…
And for me, to use as a yardstick in measuring the result of that tuition on test.
For who else is going to be bothered to keep looking out for, and keep buying, the irregular and unannounced updates in that sad little book that no one gives a thought for?
It has a very limited appeal. Learners, Instructors and Examiners and maybe Insurance companies… but that's about it!
As I proceed along almost any road these days, two things strike me. One is how appallingly badly some people drive, and the second is, in the light of the first, how few accidents occur as a result.
I have re-evaluated the skill level of the average British Motorist and while I still think that the majority are selfish, belligerent and impatient, the crash avoidance skills I often see can leave me in awe.
Take a random cross section of these people and ask them questions from the HC… The first reaction is disbelief that you are asking; second, if you are lucky, they will get about 50% right but ask when they last read the HC… 98% will say, when taking the test! Why would they need to keep reading it? They're past all that now – it's the real world out there. No one gets to work on time by observing the Highway Code, Survival techniques aren't in the Code, you need it to sort out who is to be blamed for an accident, but guidance on how to drive – forget it!
I became an Examiner because I wanted to contribute, make a difference; I honestly thought that my efforts would count.
I now realize that I was nothing more than a hurdle to jump and an amusing story to recount sometimes. Actually, I get more out of analyzing the subject now on AllExperts because anyone that is bothered to ask is at least interested.
What are your thoughts on that?
Regards,
Phil
I don't know about you but I am having problems getting on this site lately, so I am getting confused with the time line of the threads, please bear with me if I am missing the plot.
Hi Phil
I agree this is not the easiest way to communicate. I had trouble getting the site up the other day - and sending the whole expanding correspondence backwards and forwards all the time seems a bit wasteful to me (although I can see it must have advantages for you if you are answering many queries at once).
Let me try to explain my position:
When I passed my driving test (1970 or thereabouts), I'm sure I only knew a few simple things. Yet those few things enabled me to pass my test and gain experience, so that by the time I joined BSM and became an ADI (1984 or so) I had no trouble in passing the 'own driving' part of the qualification. The only thing I had to change about my driving was changing down through the gears sequentially when slowing down - big deal! (I still think the 'old way' had some advantages - say you need an unexpected burst of acceleration at 30mph and you're still in 5th, thinking you were simply going to stop? Still, who cares? I'm still here so I guess it can't matter that much)
The point for me as an instructor is to try to simplify things so that everyone can understand. I don't know if you have ever done any professional driving instruction, but it is surprisingly difficult to convert what any halfway decent driver just seems to know into something that any particular student can understand and assimilate - even when it's really easy!
The purpose of my questioning is to find more (and better) ways to help my pupils understand the principles of safe driving - after all, they are the poor sods who have to go out there and survive after they pass ('hurdle'?) their test.
To address your point about people being intelligent, caring and responsible: even a bank robber driving away from the 'job' will be more likely to succeed in his endeavours if he knows how to fit in with the rules - indeed, it may well increase his chances of escape if he doesn't stand out (same rule as judgements by driving examiners - you know, the one you said about 'if your judgement stands out from the group' and all that - no irony intended). There may be many reasons for wishing to drive well - you don't have to be a saint to drive a car...
You are right that the HC is old news. Sidelined by the Theory Test it is now almost impossible to make anyone care at all.
The question is: How do I find better ways to make pupils understand that, whatever their moral outlook, they can only benefit from driving well?
Best wishes
Phil Pepper ADI
AnswerHi Phil,
Yes, I guess I am a little jaded, and get too easily carried away on hobbyhorses.
Of course your perception would be totally different from mine and for entirely practical reasons.
I did spend time Instructing, but I have to say that I did not consider myself to be proficient at it. Analytical prowess and legal training counts for little in imparting secret techniques to the uninformed, especially when you are risking death whilst doing it!
After a long and chequered professional driving career extending into middle eastern trucking and Transport Management I decided one day that the “If you can't beat them – then join them” principle was appropriate and I figured that by the time they got to sitting their test, at least they could drive – Well, how wrong can you be?
Getting to your question, I do not thing that I can answer that, beyond mentioning that you seem to have addressed it yourself quite adequately with your “Bank Robber” analogy, If a reason can be found to justify driving well, then self-preservation has to figure highly in any list, however as I remarked earlier it still needs some intelligence and the care factor to apply that reasoning.
I acknowledge that what you are asking is a tough one, and I am sure you will agree that you are far better qualified than I to answer it.
Best wishes,
Phil
