AI Solutions: Ribena vs Tesco ??

AI Solutions: Ribena vs Tesco ??: Well the consumer has spoken, surely. After all isn't Tesco essentially a shop that supplies goods that people want to buy, or i...

Ribena vs Tesco ??

Well the consumer has spoken, surely. After all isn't Tesco essentially a shop that supplies goods that people want to buy, or is it now Big Brother, deciding what we should and shouldn't eat, of course there could be rather different reasons for their latest attempt at free advertising.

Controversy has surrounded Tesco since the beginning of 2015, when a pre-tax loss of £6.38 bn was recorded, which is not the headlines one would want. So now they have marched on with banning products to save our children's teeth? Stop childhood obesity? Seriously? If only I had realised it was that easy when I studied nutrition.

There are of course more simple explanations. Cartons provide less profit.

Hitting the headlines, however misguided the effort is, you seriously wouldn't want to be in charge of media relations right now, is important for someone suffering the blow of the massive cut in share value.

Tesco Extra stores thrive on the confectionery market, so plenty of sugar there. With confectionery in abundance. So really what can this type of media headlining do for the company? Get support from anti-sugar campaigners, or encourage the public in by stopping the supply of a brand that everyone in the UK has known for all of their lives.

My understanding of a store is it stocks items you want to buy, otherwise what is the point.

Of course there are two risks with this announcement, after all they could have just stopped selling them and said nothing. Ribena sales will rise, Tesco profits will stumble further than before as we all head off to Sainsbury's and Asda who are selling the items we want to buy.

Net Mum's are talking about babies having Ribena, well in the 1980's our children had - shock horror - Baby Ribena, Rosehip syrup and a teaspoon of sugar in their formula. How did they survive, this is of course the gym bunny generation right now. They also have better teeth.

We need sugar in our diet.

We need moderation too.

Tesco will not save the world by dictating to us.

Sedentary animals live longer, that's a worry for the powers that be if we continue to graze our way through the food cupboards.

AI Solutions: Dinosaur Driver Training

AI Solutions: Dinosaur Driver Training: I went to a meeting yesterday, supposedly with the echelons of the driver training industry. The movers and shakers. The people who me...

Dinosaur Driver Training

I went to a meeting yesterday, supposedly with the echelons of the driver training industry. The movers and shakers. The people who meet with the DVSA on behalf of the driving instructor industry and put forward the view of the ADI to then discover they have not moved with the times. As a coaching business we put forward a presentation and the most resistant members of the group were an organisation purporting to be the oldest, which was reflected in their attitude and behaviour. The younger members and those who understood the psychology behind the way we do things and why, were a different audience, whose interaction of the presentation was spoiled by ungentlemanly and down right rude behaviour, from the top of an association tree and two former DSA registrars chatting amongst themselves during all presentations from guest speakers. What hope is there for a modern test and serious acceptance of road safety, if those who are supposed to support it do not actually believe it.

Introducing something new is always a challenge and that is to be expected, but if the minds of some older road safety 'professionals' are stuck in the past, how can the ADI believe that their real wishes and understanding is being presented to the ministers. A point I have today raised with my MP.

It is true making changes within the world of road safety takes time, evidence of that is the fact it took SEVEN years after announcement of a change to the driving licence for this to actually come into force. Incidentally today. Maybe that is why we are now looking at a diluted driving test. It resembles the test of years gone by, with no interest in maneuvering the car and driving out of town. So how will a pupil once passed tackle the trials of driving in built up areas, turn the car around, a skill that is essential in all drivers, it is a fact that fatal accidents happen during this move by unskilled or unpracticed drivers. So with a driving test that would be laughable in most EU countries, how will that help road safety?

On being questioned about the new driving test a spokesman for the MSA said " I wouldn't get involved with this one" so how on Earth are driving instructors supposed to get proper representation when the providers of people power, don't believe in it?

A survey by Direct Line and Brake actually identified there is a greater risk with young drivers using sat nav in the car on their own. The driving test would still require intervention from the examiner if the sat nav makes an error, how does that prepare drivers for post test capabilities. The evidence has always supported preparing pupils for post test, this is not the case when looking at the new proposals.  It is of course an easy teach for driver trainers.

Driving forward into a parking bay, reversing out of a parking bay, surely that is part of learning to drive anyway. Parking on the right. Pupils already do this on a one way street.

The new driving test is not reflective of the NDRS and totally represents a waste of tax payers money. More publications, more research, more trials, more money.

The new driving test has returned a higher pass rate. Hardly a surprise, trails involve new skills from the trainer, so refreshed, pupils who take part in trials are usually the better able learner who would have also most likely passed the old style test.

ADI's who know what is needed for safer roads and better educated young drivers, need real representation within the DFT.

.Support the ADI within the industry, don't fight them.

From a personal note, sabotage of a professional presentation is rude, disrespectful and damaging for the industry as whole. Thank you to all of the attendees at yesterdays meeting who contacted us with words of support and encouragement. It is heartening to find that there were many who did not support the poor and unprofessional behaviour of someone who is supposed to be a leading supporter and owner of a national association for ADI's.

Changes to the Driving Test

There's a whisper, it is only a whisper that once the trials are completed it is unlikely implementation will take place. As there will be a consultation it is unlikely to find enough support unless it is not well advertised. If 100 people take part and they can all be DFT staff and 60 say yes it will be approved. However it is likely the press will run with this story more prolifically because it sells newspapers, with voting on line making it easy to take part it may cause more of a furore than previous voting efforts.  Of course this in expected to be a 2017 vote thereby clashing with the more popular referendum of whether the UK remains in the EU.

The DFT announced cuts of £545m, the fact that nearly the same amount is being taken from business, innovation and skills is bad news for the small business owner, directly in conflict with the Tort party declaring they are the supporter of small businesses. As these cuts will be spread across all DFT departments rather than one target area, the DVSA will come in line for yet more trimming, this may affect the decision to train more examiners for the new test, or just be the inroad to privatisation of the driving test.

Although there is a tweak to the manoeuvres in the new test it hardly reflects real driving. if you cannot drive through one bay and park in another, or reverse into a bay directly behind you. Although the statement is that killing someone while reversing at slow speed is unlikely and therefore the manoeuvres lose importance, surely it's about demonstrating skill in both directions. To take turn in the road from the test seems a little strange. The original manoeuvre was introduced to the test because of the missed observations and associated risk when performing this, in today's traffic this is still something that needs to be learned. There have been several fatal accidents in recent years, one involved a grandmother with her two grandchildren in the car, she turned the car around without sufficient observations and a van drove straight into the side of her car, she suffered serious injuries and the children were killed. Mistakes do happen but this is a common way to turn the car around in built up areas.

If the UK leaves the EU the pressure to tackle road death is relieved and along with that the compulsory conformity.  If we stay then there will be an intention to enforce mandatory road safety changes, but the Government will want to weigh up the cost, as they are looking to make cuts across all public services of £4.5 bn.

Road Safety - Stop Now!

Taking a McLaren P1 for a spin at 60 mph, then stop on a pin head, time to stop 30.2 metres excellent, with it's carbon ceramic discs, behind you is a Renault Megane, time to stop 48.4 metres. Highway code 55 metres. So are stopping distances as described in an official publication wrong? Now add the thinking time while on the way home from work on a regular journey, the auto pilot drive. Warm car, music on low, dinner on your mind. Business meeting, warm day aircon humming, medium traffic flow. How long will it take you?

If it's never gone wrong before we do not anticipate it going wrong now.

The expected time to process the information, just under one second (TRL 2013), so I believe I can stop, what if I'm wrong? Although the Highway Code figures may be disputable with the amount of technology available, in reality the driver has not been upgraded, in terms of behaviour, knowledge and reaction. Add in the modern distractions such as the mobile phone and sat nav. Do you want other drivers to acknowledge the Highway Code figures or the proposed assumption of the experienced driver in a brand new car with good brakes and tyres?


What is the message from road safety professionals?

At the end of the day to message to young drivers is all of the information you have learned is actually dated, it's not true, look around at other drivers in their modern cars. Do your family and friends stop when they need to? Can you? You are young, your reactions are quicker? Just look at Facebook and Twitter for the information.

So how will Graduated Driving Licences (GDL) tackle this?

GDL doesn't tackle attitude. A ridiculous amount of money, millions of pounds, has been spent trialing something we already know the answer to. Learning by rote as in the advent of black box technology. Do this again and again and again until it becomes your habit.  Training. Some will remember this parrot fashion approach, some still use it, some will advocate this, and why not it has a proven worth.

GDL takes control to the the extreme but it still does not guarantee saving lives.  Figures quoted relate to collision not fatality. This could be of any level. Can GDL make a distracted driver pay attention - no. Can GDL, and the extreme cost associated to implementation guarantee the reduction of young driver fatality? No.

Do I want my teenage daughter to be restricted by not driving at night, the time specifically I do want her to drive as opposed to walk. Do I want her to drive alone, not really, a young female driving alone, seriously? I do agree with phones free, but who will implement it, when hands held is on the increase not the decrease, despite the fact it is illegal. Who is going to Police this?

Less talk, less of my money spent on yet more research, and time for some proper action. It's make you mind up time, while we are in the EU, because there will be no pressure to proceed with anything if we are solo.

A 12 month learning process?  

That has potential.

Driver Training - as we know it

Wow the world of blogging has so taken off, does it help promote services, business or person, ooh a difficult call. Yes of course it must, if your blog is read the audience is reached, but how does your business reach the giddy heights of excellence in a competitive world and market place.  Well coaching has to be the move forward.  Coaching has almost become a dirt word in driver training, the influx of training courses and almost the taking of sides in the uncertain future of the DVSA and of course the ADI. One course rivaling another yet surely variety is the spice of life.  Making a stand in favour rather than having an open mind not only restricts the trainer but has a limiting effect on the learner, in the days of CCL, the client is king or queen of course. Limiting beliefs are not the order of the day. Coaching is not all encompassing but are we open minded enough as a society to let in the professional coach, bare our soul with the aim of improving ourselves and our business.  Well, the feedback is that business is good so now is not the time to invest in our soul, yet the advisors tell us this absolutely the time, not only can we currently afford it we can also expand and manipulate a buoyant market.  Or is that just too much to carry.

The DVSA has seen a decade of change, but as an evolving civil community we can expect no less, but what our options of this agency when the vote is cast in May,  Only the foolish will believe it can stay the same.  The world of driver training is actually in limbo, with heavy goods vehicles reaching dizzy heights of weight freedom, charges set in stone and CPC extending to the populous of van drivers. A new Government sees new targets a UKIP Government sees a relaxation.  If you believe in road safety then the way forward is to cast a vote for the sanctity of young life.  But which party has road safety at it's core.   Surprisingly Labour favour compulsory CPD for ADI's, and the Tory Government in favour of privatisation of these public services, which would raise standards and meet targets, but at the expense of the advocate.  Which would you choose.  Is their any fight for standards? Or is it left to someone else.

Can you make a name by fighting the rad safety corner, the general public have little support for raised standards or increased financial commitment to reducing road fatality figures, a driver with minimal or zero accident history dies not support the direction of tax payers money on what is considered a right if not a leisure activity.  Is there any hope for drivers and driver training after Mat 2015, really Are you sure? Do you care? Do you believe?

Expectancy is deeper then reality and reality is minimal compared to concern. Which side do you fall on? The vocationer? The believer? The sceptic?

Coaching, the key. Who coaches the coach?

2015 a significant year, for everyone.

AI Solutions: Why change the check test?

AI Solutions: Why change the check test?: The check test was changed as a result of many factors. One being the need for a recognition of more up to date teaching styles, and ...

Why change the check test?

The check test was changed as a result of many factors. One being the need for a recognition of more up to date teaching styles, and to encourage extra education amongst instructors.  In 2007 the transport select committee heard evidence to support change, and typically it has taken some years to come about.

However there is considered to be another reason, unconfirmed as political moves are never announced until the ink is dry, that testing will be delivered by an outside agency, therefore all ADI's need to have their check test grade replaced with the new A or B system.  Cardington would continue to train examiners for private companies who win the tender, similar to the tendering process of theory tests. The role then of the DVSA senior examiners would be quality control.

To pass the mantel with testing they would need to have a more simplex system, so an A, B or fail is much easier to train an outside agency with than the previous more complex, three pass or three fail grades.

EU inspired conversations have led to this in the light of making testing of instructors more cost effective, so the standards check fee would not go directly to the DVSA in future, but be processed independently.

The standards check has seen more fails than the previous test, but is that due to examiners coming to grips with the system or a reality.  There has been so much consideration to the current part three being replaced with teaching qualifications, that some companies actually ask for PTTLS or equivalent for their trainers. There would need to be a direct relation between driver training and teaching so this has stalled the progress. It is however subject to change.

Many believe the part three system isn't robust enough, yet many instructors who qualified through that system have delivered safe young drivers, so the system cannot be so flawed. There are a minority who would seek huge change, but then say this is not a career to enter.  If the entry is to be improved then the public awareness of the role of the instructor and the impact on the safety of their students needs more clarification. It also would then need to see a suitable fee for the work carried out. After all I have never seen a dentist or plumber offering first visit free.

So is the change to the check test to protect young lives? Essentially that is the carrot. The stick is who will be controlling it.

CCL - Reality or Fantasy?

Taking driver training into the future we must have CCL - bold statement, but one that seems to appear a lot.

So must we?

Well that depends on the driver training industry. For years we have been sending safe drivers out to fight the battlefield alone and shockingly they survived. However we do know there are small group who were either blagging it - seriously? Or they just happened to have enough knowledge and car control to carry them through - most likely.  Do they end up being the unlucky drivers though, well not necessarily, its long been known that educational background, financial background and criminal background plays a part too.

Are we led by the crowd, does our behaviour reflect our peer group, certainly it does but not necessarily when out of that environment. So playing with the crowd does not reflect a solo performance. How can the driver who is going to be a statistic be identified, well if we knew the answer to that we could intervene surely, actually it's not that easy. Teaching by rote can be a useful tool but there is no responsibility attached to that, so along came client centered learning which in fact is a dual tool. Client centered reflects value for money, the aim of the DVSA. Client centered also reflects client dominated learning.  Transfer of responsibility from trainer to learner does in fact increase the tools for managing driving when alone.  So by creating environment, time and real world driving scenarios during training the novice has an image of how they would deal with a situation post test, this involves more q & a than many previously used and it also involves more time parked at the side of the road.  Unfortunately many see being parked discussing a situation with a pupil as 'not driving', so a negative, when in reality a visual image to aid learning and then developed is more effective in terms of appreciating responsibility and effect, a positive.

However when the driver cub plays with the driver lions they can get into deep trouble, one that inexperience cannot tackle, because the events happen so fast. Experienced drivers have more tools available to them, but their response to a potentially life threatening situation is based on two things, testosterone and oestrogen.

It is a fact that hormone surges do affect out behaviour, response time and understanding, when travelling at speed, using a 60 mph rural lane as an example, distance covered can be too great for reaction. Hormone surges do not affect everyone and age is a relevant factor.

So is CCL a reality?

Well yes an additional aid to keep someone safe has to be a reality, if one life was saved through the process that would make it worthwhile

Is CCL a fantasy?

The predominant age of those taking part in developing CCL for use in driver training were male over the age of 45 so not in the group affected by natural factors (hormones). So how much real life that is not nurture but nature was factored in to the decision to change driver training approaches?

The higher levels of the GDE are dealing with post test responsibility, however behaviour is also affected by consequence, if there has been no consequence then complacency will become part of driving and that involves autopilot driving, so the driver who feels that they are less competent than their friends or family will be more attentive to their driving, they may be less able to tackle risk so choose situations where their risk is reduced, so busy times rather than quiet ones.

A natural personal responsibility is noted to change with experience, when moving from teens into 20's and 30's after this point moving into 50's and later years drivers tend to have less daily pressure, their driving becomes more relaxed and so does their ability to deal with pressure from other drivers, hence the 40 mph in a 60 mph brigade. The risk in this group is potential health problems that affect mood and behaviour.  Road rage can easily be borne from an un-diagnosed medical condition that affects the natural chemical make up of the body.


How can client centered learning help instructors move away from traditional methods of rote?
By taking control and not misunderstanding the watered down coaching methods that have come to the fore.

New Speed Limits? Really?

It will come as no surprise to most that new speed limits for HGV's is set to come into force on 6th April 2015, the decision was agreed by the transport select committee in January, however there has been no formal confirmation about when the changes will take place, with existing limits to remain in force for now.

The consultation saw 703 responses, the majority opposed the changes. The thought behind the increase was pressure from the hauliers, faster speeds to reduce the amount of dangerous overtaking on rural roads, however research points to the increase to 50 mph on that road type is unlikely to reduce the misjudged overtaking and rather increase the impact speed when it goes wrong.

A dangerous driver who takes risk with their own life and someone else's life, family and future will do so regardless of the increase. Drivers who can travel at 60 mph on this road type see 50 mph as an equal inconvenience.  With lorries seeing an increase on the dual carriageway from 50 mph to 60 mph is a wasted change, with trucks being limited to 56 mph and 53 mph.

For hauliers, the extra road speed opens up the possibility to do more work in a day, that will equal tighter time targets for greater production. More stress, more pressure for drivers, this in turn will add to fatigue and the loser is not the Government or the transport companies, whose push for this change to help their monetary situations led to this revision, it will be the ordinary people. The drivers, the public the vulnerable road users. For driver trainers, what will the input be? Three people die on a rural single carriageway every day, checks on working hours, driver records, licences and health checks reduced by half, meaning that the regulation of HGV drivers is poor compared to previous years.

The only upside is the fact that the meeting concluded many rural roads will be reclassified as 40 mph, making the rise in limits a token gesture rather than a reality.

More worrying is that there is no evidence to support a benefit to the change in speed limits for lorries, with road side checks for HGV's falling significantly.   If there was more enforcement, average speed cameras, Police on the roads to uphold the legislation then we could move away from lazy politics, where major players pull the strings and not the tax payer who will pick up the road safety bill when this ends in tears.

Although the general consensus of the transport select committee was that the move was a bad idea in terms of road safety, that will see an increase in road fatalities they voted in favour, and we pay these people to protect us!

RED Driving School - Update

The structure at RED has changed, surprisingly David Cowan has resigned as director and on 11th February 2015 this position was taken by Philip Weston.  Mr Weston was a director at Kelso Place Asset Management until 2006, of course with Kelso having so many different limited companies, Philip is still director for some..  As companies go the holding body is quite changeable in comparison to other driving schools. Whether this is good or bad news for RED is yet to be seen.

Philip Weston is also a director of I2S Group Ltd, accounts filed up to date, and the company is a green light one. Which is effectively good news. I2S Group Ltd has also changed it's name four times. As a management company their role is much the same as Kelso's had been.

Philip Weston is director of 22 limited companies of which 21 are active. The combined deficit for these companies amounts to 17,441,738, although there is over £1m in the bank for the combined cash available, it does pose a question for this company who are under their management control.

I have of course bought up the subject of RED several times, mainly because it is the least stable of the major players of driving schools.  With the AA now answerable to share holders, and more offers available for potential pupils but a higher overall hourly rate, may put them in the running for a potential take over bid.

Is there a future for large schools or are small cooperatives or franchises the future.  Driver education is frequently offered by smaller companies and in the corporate field is welcome more often even by major businesses. In the past RED made a conscious effort to raise it's profile, attract new blood into driver training and to revive it's media position.  This has recently stumbled and that is a shame as all competition is healthy.

Excessive claims by the company on TV were muted as the start of it's downfall but really it was how it was presented.  If the business had been packaged in a different way then it would not be the focus for discussion now. So really an announcement of future plans would be worthwhile to everyone involved.

Young Driver Risk

It's long been evidenced that shock tactics do not work, yet there are still some organisations using these methods to try and prevent young driver fatalities by scaring them.  In some EU states victim association is used, with those who have killed someone on the roads meeting the family who are also victims of such an event.  Schools and colleges do invite DVD events where pictures, images and accidents are dramatised so as a company we carried out some research of our own into the effectiveness of such dramatic footage.

Taking four groups of ten students, aged between 16 and 19 from cross economic environments some from sixth form and the remainder college students. The group included some non-drivers, new drivers and those with more than twelve months experience for the results to be as broad as possible.

Those who had seen footage of accidents but never been involved in one surmised the films were enhanced to produce maximum effect and that a real time accident would not be so dramatic.  Those who were new drivers agreed with this, with only one saying they believed that an accident could be so.  The drivers with more than a years experience believed that driver error, notably amongst other drivers not themselves, could result in life changing or fatal injury and that a low impact shunt could produce an effect similar to that of the film.

One learner driver had witnessed an accident while on a driving lesson between two drivers on an opposite carriageway, the impact was far more severe than she could picture and commented that the footage shown does not convey the reality.  She now found her driving had become more cautious and her awareness raised.  So real time, as expected was much more effective.

Talks in colleges from accident victims within peer groups had very mixed responses, with one asking if the victim who had been in a coma was being paid for his talk.  This indicated to the data collectors that personality also played a part, with some of the other group members being shocked by such a statement.

The research pointed to the fact that consequence was relevant to attitude and that money spent on ideas that were deemed worthy may need to be rethought.  Campaigns will always hit a minority audience, and it's better than none at all, but current trials and research are not

Data Privacy

With the Government saving money by being paperless, the tax payer should be seeing a reduction in costs, however there seems to be an opportunity to make more money as opposed to less.  By making services available on line the profit on fees will increase, with the DVSA being responsible for accrediting all CPC courses for a fee on a yearly renewable basis, when is the tax payer going to see a benefit based on the savings?  The DVSA have streamlined their services, are saving on resources without costly test centres to run in many areas, and a cash intake from the sale of properties. So what will this extra money be spent on? Well prevention of scamming the system, fraud or similar. In fact anything that would divert money from Government resources.

So although scam websites with DVSA in their web address are reportedly illegal, why is taking so long to stop the few who are making vast profits from the less savvy internet user.  Surely the extra available funds should be directed this way. Well it seems that the most effort is advertising the fact that these sites exist, which is all very well, but unfortunately those who are most likely to be caught out are the ones who are less likely to heed or even understand the warnings,

As with most things, if you already revolve in an environment then you would expect a certain level of knowledge and that just is not the case.  With computer use estimated rather than confirmed, then surely information should be slightly easier to access.  Any system is easy and usable with experience, but with many using this service once in their lifetime that seems wishful thinking.

The DVLA have had huge staff loses with a rolling redundancy programme for over 6000 staff as we see the end of local offices, pushing the consumer online, which from my experience can be tedious, time consuming and at times very frustrating, and I consider myself to be very internet literate.

It now transpires that the DVLA will be raising their fee to make a 'small surplus' which to you and me is profit, for providing vehicle owner details to private parking agencies. A service that surely is using a loophole in data protection and leaves the tax payer vulnerable, particularly to the less scrupulous operators.

If a private company cannot enforce the fees and parking restrictions on their own property then surely individual management systems need to review their operating procedures, not sit in an office and target individuals because they do not have enough manpower.  If giving out data is cheaper than on the ground enforcement, then something is wrong with the system.  With this resource now being available on line as opposed to the previous postal requests then enforcement has just become too easy and invites lazy practice.

The shared ANPR data which the DVSA access is necessary in this technological age, with no displayed tax discs or MOT evidence.  However, selling of personal data should surely be restricted. With so much remote Policing and enforcement, we won't have anyone working in the agency offices, but just techy equipment and an operator.

The DVSA working with other agencies including the DVLA will have their own STMO, which does also confirms the moving into more limited companies, owned by the Secretary of State and the potential to sell shares. Privatisation is just around the corner for all departments.