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.

Privatisation of Our Roads

Well it seems selling out the tax payer is on the horizon, at what point are we actually going to be in a position where the UK has any assets at all. For the driver, and I don't mean driver trainers I mean road users, we are, after all, adding to the driving population by a way of career, things are about to get worse. So with the post test training still hot around the edges as far as the ERSC are concerned and on the table for the UK until at least May 2014, are we really helping by preparing these people for an uncertain future of driving.

The current Government consultation, which I thought carefully about before participating, defines the future of the roads, yet how many out of 64 million plus people, will get involved, and why would they, because as previous consultations show, the publicity surrounding these matters is always weak. Will more than 1,000 respond, hmm, we shall see.  Should our national associations be taking part, of course they could, we produce drivers, they use the roads, many are happy to defend the young driver and complain about insurance costs, so surely getting involved in this is important too, or it's half a job.

The Highways Agency is about to become a company in it's own right, if this goes unchallenged, the road network is worth £107.4bn so a hefty asset.  So HA a private company, Government owned, a share holding company, with the Secretary of State as the only shareholder, yet with the asset still showing as part of the DFT, is that legal?  I have to guess so.  If the Secretary of State then chooses to sell shares in the HA then the roads are privately owned, so not quite the huge railway error, but not far short.

So have you taken part in the consultation? Will you? Do you think privatisation is a good idea? because from where I am sitting it hasn't helped us so far. Maybe I am thinking too far ahead, but if the money we are spending now on changing the driving test and making sure our drivers of the future, despite the not too distant future of driverless cars, are competent and responsible, then why are we not covering the next level.

Many pieces of the trainee driving instructor training jigsaw are in the mix, with the spotlight highlighting a change would be beneficial and that wannabe ADI's are unprepared under the new system, yet the new driver is unprepared for all of the major changes on our roads.

http://www.aicoachingsolutions@aol.co.uk

Preaching to the Converted

Is it any wonder that less than 1% of ADI's take an active interest in the future of driving instruction or their career path, that CPD is a nasty word along with the equally unpopular business skills. The majority of driving instructors currently on the register have no up to date information or comprehension of the changes taking place.

National membership of associations is not representative of the majority, which suits the ministers because if every ADI became actively involved their hands would be tied and bowing to the majority would become a reality not a threat. Power is addictive, we all know that, human nature not nurture, adrenaline fuelled pleasure. So who is the real voice.

There is no voice, I have just been reading through a programme of an up and coming conference, which shall remain nameless. Every speaker in that list knows each other, the list of attendees, passed on is a list of familiar names, and as I know the majority I am comfortable that they also know each other. So is a conference about informing the ADI, getting the information out there and helping the World to be a better place, or is it about back slapping and secret hand shakes.

The EURSC are moving in to great change, the UK is hanging on the tails of this major upheaval, we have left it to the last gate to make changes in the UK, where other countries have embraced these moves sooner, the ultimate goal is to save lives, yet that has become diluted in a potential opportunity to market new qualifications to the ADI.  The shake up of the qualifying process, or maybe the shake down.  If the response to the consultation is as confirmed by the DFT to be a majority group of Government employees and members of the public, then the final word is out of the hands of those affected by it.

Should those who spend the majority of their time taking part in streamlining the future of the ADI and purporting to be representative be actively out there spreading the word, or is it just a case of if you're not in then close the door behind you.

When the DSA ran meetings around the country, which ADI's who have been in the industry post 2007 will know nothing of, the information was up to date, there were no fees to pay, and forecasts for the next ten years was common place, the conferences stopped because of the cost, yet the instructor who was not a member of any association could go, by invitation, and it cost nothing but time. Why are there no moves to reinstate this, particularly in this time of change? I shall tell you the answer to that in due course as the minister will be getting back to me on that one.

As tax payers, before we are ADI's, what do we get for our money, with potential charges for ADI errors, a fee for a standards check that we have to have anyway (hmm), the potential to have all elements of our qualification scrutinised and then of course there is the grading for the elite, pass or fail should be enough, then there is no need for the DSAVOSA group to publish anything, as self-employed people we are surely capable of advertising ourselves.

The converted do not need the preaching, the information or the time, the ones on the outside with their noses pressed against the glass who have no idea what the writing on the wall says, need our help more.

Consultation - Ministers reply

So, as usual I was on a mission to support the ADI, I don't believe in elitism and I do believe in fair play, so to find that the consultation extension was refused, when twelve weeks would have been more reasonable, I wrote to the Transport Minister, my MP and a couple of other ministers for good measure.

The replies were in dribs and drabs, sadly the TM didn't reply until post consultation, however the writing was on the wall for that, we just pay their wages we don't actually have any say. It was a light weight response which carefully side stepped my concerns and was the best attempt at avoiding a straight answer yet, it also confirmed the fact that they don't actually read any correspondence, someone else skim reads it and jots down some notes because at the end it suggests I reply to the consultation - arrggghh!!!

They have had 400 replies, many being from Government staff and members of the public, they have spoken to the national organisations and accepted their views, which count as one! So less than 1% of instructors have actually taken part in this. I wish I was shocked but I'm not. I am however disappointed that our TM has little interest in making sure that all ADI's were made aware of the consultation by sending the good old fashioned letter.

The results of the green paper for new drivers is due to be released in October apparently, I guess we are going to see some rushing through of the preferred ConDem route before the general election, with the driving instructor community being such a small group compared to other professions, it is a poor show that we aren't better represented in Parliament but used as sacrificial lambs for the EU charter.

To say that they are listening to the ADI associations is not as accurate as we would like to believe, if they were the extension would have been granted, as with one hand they say the associations are a voice with the other they say the voice is wrong - confused? Yep, me too.

Instructor Training

Is it here to stay, will the current methods change or are we looking at a real transformation?

If the current system stays, which is the cheapest option for the tax payer, there will be a sigh of relief from those who have invested their efforts providing training. The driving instructors we have on our roads are mainly doing a good job, of course there are those who flout the system, after all I saw pass plus certificates for sale! Are the few bad apples enough to warrant an overhaul that is a great expense to the tax payer, because right now it feels like this Government is selling us out.

The ConDems will use tax payers money to change the system, then the back office will put delivery of this service out to private tender, meaning the tax payer cannot recoup their losses. This has nothing to do with us providing a better, more efficient, professional service and everything to do with passing the buck.

The DVLA are seeing 6700 redundancies as part of a rolling programme, the DSA have the potential to be next, if the entry process is academic then the responsibility will eventually fall under the umbrella of the STA, however, even with the opportunity to save money by making examiners redundant there will still need to be some form of accrediting agency, so a slimmer, trimmer DSA who can train examiners for the private sector, for a fee. Total business sense. The modern Government, also known as Arvato, want every public service to be run privately and make a profit. Things sound so simple on paper.

The changes that have been put forward surely cannot be supported by the three key players, the DIA, MSA and NJC, if their responses to the consultation, closing today, support a change in instructor training then it hasn't been investigated deeply enough, of course with the short time frame that would not be easy, there is of course still potential to block these changes.

There are not many ADI's that wouldn't like to see an improved entry process, possibly teaching a live pupil as opposed to the nerve wracking, unrealistic version currently on offer, to display a level of CPD, regardless of how dirty that word has become, and serious professional attitude.

The advantages of change -

A more academic entry system
No abuse of the pink badge
Trainees with a recognised qualification


The dis-advantages of change

Likely to be monopolised by the big boys
No on road experience of pink badge
The less academic will fall at the first fence
The cost to the tax payer


I'm not adverse to change, but this is not change for the better, the wrapping is pretty but the box is empty.

Road Charging

The DFT pushed out a consultation for The Road User Charging Scheme. How many actually knew about it? This consultation has impact on every resident in the UK, so why are so many consultations being pushed through, with the get out clause ' The department was keen to receive the views of as many people as possible' to do this they provided three ways of responding, online, via email and by letter. Which is acceptable, if anyone knew about it.

I consider myself to be very up to date with developments across all Government departments, and always take part but I must have blinked and missed this one, yet as a driver trainer who uses the roads for work and as a life and executive coach who travels to clients I view this consultation to be quite important. I wonder how many other road users missed the boat? Well with 37m driving licences registered in the UK and with a huge response of 60 people, yes that's 60, I get the feeling this was a welcome level of response after all.

So if 85% of 60 which is 53 agree then no contest. It wasn't quite a whitewash, but almost, with 34 agreeing with the proposals and 18 disagreeing, which equals 52, we have to assume the other 8 found the seven questions too taxing. It seems that the toll at Dartford came up in the responses too, and that is hardly a surprise, also hardly surprising is the fact that it was outside of the scope of this consultation to deal with a charge at the crossing. So exactly what is a road user charging scheme consultation if it doesn't cover road charging?

So start saving your pennies, the brush about to sweep clean the future of the driver, will use tax payers money to install cameras, as the London congestion charge, and we had better be ready to pay to use our pot holed, uneven, congested roads.

NHS Reforms...

It's a very full email box today, consultations for driving instructors, which has become a hair pulling exercise, Ministry of Justice consultations, and now NHS consultations, I haven't even opened the HMRC one yet!

So, there are about 64 million people in the UK, all entitled to treatment under the NHS, UKIP hit a nerve and the public responded by asking for the end to health tourism, rightly so, I broke a tooth while on holiday and it cost me 120Euro to fix, nobody is going to pay that for me, and of course being a cancer patient nobody wants to insure me.

So we are all grateful for the NHS and what it provides, despite the fact that prescribed drugs are generic and we are prescribed the cheapest option or the best deal from the drug company for the NHS at that time. The thought that we may be limited to doctor visits sticks in my throat, for years I rarely saw my doctor, I have had eighteen months of poor health where I have had to visit the doctor almost so often she doesn't even need to look at my notes any more. No money will see an increase in misdiagnosis, because if you have to pay (I'm sure I've already done the paid bit in the last 30 years), but can't then what?

Those on benefits will see us pick up the doctors bill and those on a low wage will have to suffer in silence - great idea - not!

The NHS consultation covers migrants abusing the health service, the ink is probably dry but the questions have to appear to be asked, at what point are we as a nation of tax payers heard? We won't be. Pushing through all of these consultations, or attempts that appear to ask for our views, are the steps taken by Arvato Bertelsmann before we are sold out to the highest bidder.

Are we all so lazy that we will just accept what the future holds, the response to all of the consultations are poor, the media isn't picking up on it and these changes are not making national press or pleading for us to take part, why? The answer is in the controlling body.

The Pressure is on

So road safety figures have fallen to the lowest they have every been, since records began in 1926. There are around 37m driving licences in the UK that are live, so the right to drive on our roads is quite high, yet the numbers are falling year on year, this means whatever we are doing must be right?

I've had a few discussions the last couple of days with the cynics, massaging of figures, cars are safer, no money for fuel, insurance costs, the list goes on. However are we as a nation safer and more aware than in previous years. A recent survey by Central DT found that out of 300 members of the public questioned more than three quarters believed our roads to be a dangerous place, our position on the EU road safety scale is always in the top three, but only 63% thought we were higher than number five, with 4% saying we were number 27. Is it this startling contrast between reality facts and figures and perception that keeps people safe.

For young drivers we have black box technology which will increase their awareness, by rote learning, however is black box technology the future for us all? It looks as if black boxes in cars will become a compulsory requirement as the Vision Zero date comes closer, with Ecall needing tracking for it to work, and the fatigue policy rolling out tacho requirements for van drivers and company car drivers, to reduce driving hours without a break.  So maybe all drivers will become more conscientious driving by rote as the data is recorded, will this replace the SPECS cameras planned to cover the UK motorway network for 2016.

With consultations having short time spans and legislation coming in to shake up a lot of the system, the RTA reaching it's conclusion for new laws is this the Government making work for itself, is it the back office reaching out for ways to save money, because the ADI looks to be getting a lot more spending out and not any more finance coming in.

Because of the apathy amongst the majority of instructors when it comes to taking part in processes, consultations and meetings, and generally having their say, the majority of the proposals will be pushed through and we will not be able to go back.

Standards checks?

Or check tests? What really is the difference, will we as trainers notice anything we need to do differently in our everyday work, we asked for change to take place, a minority of ADI's asked for modernisation and it came dressed as the standards check. Tax payers handed over large sums of money for research, some of which will never reach publication and some went towards EU research.

So that is the stick, where is the carrot?

Well from where I am sitting we haven't had a carrot, we need better professional recognition, for road safety to be taken seriously and lives to be saved, cut price, cut throat lesson offers need to stop, all it does is undermine all of this spent money and hard work.  Cheap lessons send out the opposite message to the one we are trying to convey.

As driving instructors begin to take more training and qualifications they will also need time off to study, if the lesson prices are cut to the bone how will that be possible. So are the standards checks about road safety, really? The proposed penalty structure for the registrar? Really? Fine the ADI, as if we don't pay enough.

I have championed saving lives and have always had active involvement in trying to make our roads a safer place for our children and then their children, it has to start somewhere, but I also believe in supporting the ADI, what part of publishing ADI data, civil sanctions, and paying for check tests is about saving lives? It does of course boost revenue if every part of the service is paid for.

If the more structured approach is to do more than sort the wheat from the chaff, but really tackle road safety, then learning to drive privately with no formal instruction prior to test has to stop, otherwise it makes a mockery of dressing this up as a life saving exercise and turns it into a political one, ticking the EU directive criteria for the sake of it.

Education is the way forward, better teaching standards from ADI's has been identified as a step in the right direction, the question has to be how can we achieve this realistically, a standards check is not enough, one hour snapshot into our daily work is never going to be a clear picture, how many ADI's do not like losing paid work for this exercise, and now they may also have to fund this check. CPD really was the better option, taking part in academic qualifications, exercising the brain, learning something new, adding to our portfolios, would also save the tax payer money in the long run by cutting out the middle man.

Encouraging the majority of ADI's to take part in this consultation is hard work, some will not know, some have no internet, some have no access to the information, if you do not join the electronic age then you are left out, I think that is unfair. Technology may be the future, but if you are earning £50 for ten hours work there will be other things to pay and that won't include the broadband bill. Having to conform is the opposite to the essence of Great Britain, where we have always had freedom of choice. Despatch should still be sent out as a hard copy to instructors on the register, so then those who really do not want to take part have a choice.

Learning to drive, being in charge of a vehicle is serious stuff, it's time now for this industry to stand up and be counted and not have another consultation where less than 1% have their say. The consultation tells us what the Government want and then hold out the choices, yet we should be saying actually we do want some of this but we want this too. We do not want to get caught up in consultations of the past that have been challenged eventually because the questioning was strategically structured to obtain the required responses, we want a fair process for effective moves forward and to see the road safety figures continue to fall.

To research some of the history behind these decisions is a good move if you are not familiar with how the proposed changes came about, it spans more than ten years, so a long time coming, but politically doctored along the way.  What do you want? Do you want the proposed changes or to really have your say with ideas of your own?  Now is the time to lobby ministers before the ink is dry.

If you believe you are good at what you do then fighting for the career you would like to see evolve is the only way.