Longrider

The BBC is touting eco-driving.

As the price of petrol edges ever higher, can a change in driving habits use less fuel - and salve a car fan’s conscience?

I’m a keen recycler, buyer of energy-saving lightbulbs and user of public transport, but when it comes to cars all my green efforts go out the window (rolled down, sunroof open). Until it started to cost an eye-watering £54 to fill my car with fuel.  

Well, aside from the little matter that nothing short of darkness will persuade me to buy those god-awful “green” lightbulbs, the matter of eco-driving is nothing new…

But proponents of a motoring technique known as “eco-driving” - who include the AA, the Energy Saving Trust and the government - claim that it will not just cut emissions of carbon dioxide, but could also improve fuel efficiency by up to 30%.

The idea is that through good maintenance, a more relaxed driving style and cutting out short trips, you can make a difference to the health of the planet - and your wallet.

Tim Shallcross, of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, says while car manufacturers have many ideas to make their products more environmentally-friendly, using smarter driving techniques can make an immediate difference.

Ignore the “saving the planet” bollocks and underneath it all, you have something that is almost as old as driving itself. The principle of advanced driving technique is to maximise the distance between oneself and hazards. This involves reading the road, lifting one’s foot off the gas and easing off before a situation develops – thus avoiding unnecessary braking. Gentle, yet brisk acceleration to an optimum cruising speed, smooth use of gears and selecting the appropriate gear just prior to needing it. And, of course, regular maintenance – correct tyre pressures, efficient brakes, fuel system and so on.

Nope, nothing new – just the packaging.

I’ve been using these techniques for thirty years – it’s why when many motorcyclists get around 6,000 miles to a rear tyre (or a lot less in some cases), I get nearer to 12,000 miles. It’s why I get the better part of 50mpg from my bike when others see half that. No, I don’t hang about, I just get there more smoothly and do the same when losing speed. 

Thirty years ago, we didn’t call it eco-driving (riding) we called it advanced driving – because that’s what it is.

In an attempt to drive home the message that driving while using a mobile phone is dangerous the guidelines are to be changed:

People who use mobile phones, sat-navs or MP3 players while driving could face up to two years in prison, under new guidelines being published today by prosecutors.

Here we go… Causing death by dangerous driving has been around for some while and an incident investigation has always posed the possibility of using ancillary equipment as a contributing factor, so really, there is nothing new here. If a driver causes death by dangerous driving, then death by dangerous driving, it is.

Using a mobile phone, sat-nav or an MP3 player while at the wheel will be treated as dangerous driving instead of careless driving, with the chance of up to two years in prison.

Using a mobile phone; yes, I accept that. It is why I never use a phone while driving, not even a hands-free. If people want to talk to me, they will have to wait.

We still see terrible crashes where people have been texting, driving into the back of stationary queues because they haven’t seen them.

Well, yes, people who do this deserve all they get. If they do this, then they are driving dangerously and there is a specific offence to cover it.

I also accept that using an MP3 player could be a distraction if the driver is using headphones and the outside traffic noise is significantly diminished as a consequence. However, simply listening to music is not a major distraction. If it was, we would be careering off the roads every time we switched on the radio or CD player. If the driver is adjusting the equipment on the move and is, therefore, not watching the road, well, that’s another matter.

Now… using a sat-nav… These things are designed to be used on the move. I use one on a daily basis on the bike. I would have some difficulty finding some of the more obscure locations I have to attend without it. Ever tried map reading on a bike? Which is more distracting; looking down at a set of directions taped to the tank or listening to voice prompts in the headset? When navigating in a car, which is more distracting; glancing at a screen next to the speedometer or leaning across to the open map on the passenger seat? Pulling over in busy traffic is not always an option, particularly when trying to work out which lane you should be in on a multi-lane junction. The sat-nav is much like any other instrument provided for the driver; tachometer, speedometer, fuel gauge and so on. All are intended to be glanced at while on the move. Or is glancing at the speedometer a distraction and can we ignore these in an attempt to avoid prosecution for dangerous driving?

Update: I see that the Telegraph carries the same story and specifically mentions “adjusting” the sat-nav. That puts a slightly different spin on the story. That said, mine has a safety cut out. That is; you can’t make adjustments while on the move. Mine’s a Garmin. Do others have the same feature?

I don’t often post about my personal circumstances. However, I did about eighteen months ago. Then, my plan was to regain my ADI qualification. I hinted some while after that, that things weren’t exactly going smoothly. There were a number of factors in this; I seriously underestimated the changes that had occurred in the intervening years. The quality of training that I received – which, incidentally was a consequence of the quality of training my trainer had received and I only found out rather too late for it to be dealt with effectively – and my own changing motivations saw this course of action grind to a halt. I discovered that the reasons I left the industry still remained; a saturated market and ruthless franchise operators flooding that market with little concern for their franchisees attempting to make a living. Did I really want to go back to this? Also, did I want to spend each day sitting beside learner drivers having left it all behind some fifteen years previously? As an aside, during that period I taught my nephew to drive and his first time test pass validated my belief that I could still do it. Getting through the part three was another matter…

The answer, over a period of months exposure to the industry became a resounding “no”.

There was a lesson I learned from this and to anyone contemplating becoming a driving instructor for the first time, I would urge you to ask questions of both yourself and the training organisation you plan to use; this will hopefully save you wasting around £3,000.

Firstly, do you really want this, more than anything else? If you are not fully motivated then you will, sooner or later, falter. The examinations are increasingly difficult and the part three is probably the most difficult and unfair form of exam I have ever encountered either as an assessor or as a candidate. Unless you have received adequate training and are absolutely focussed and prepared, you will find this a hurdle too many. The first time I did this, I sailed through it, not only because I wanted it more than anything else but because I was properly trained and prepared, so there were no nasty surprises. More recently, it was a disaster as the examiner picked up faults that had gone either unnoticed or ignored during my training. I still have one more attempt open to me, but have decided not to pursue it. To do so will mean paying for another provider to retrain me to the relevant standard. I have neither the money nor the inclination.

Which brings me to your choice of school. I made a serious error of judgement here. Glossy adverts, slick web pages and a national name are not necessarily all they are cracked up to be. If you phone for information, before you hand over your credit card details ask some searching questions;

If they are not ORDIT registered, they damn well should be and excuses that it is voluntary are not acceptable answers. Ask, too, about their pass rates. If you are told that they cannot tell you or that they are meaningless because each instructor operates separately as a franchisee and therefore the school doesn’t know, that is not good enough. They are selling an expensive product and they should know; indeed, they have a duty to know exactly how each instructor is performing and to manage the quality of that performance. Ask, too, what their quality control regime is – I expect you will get some interesting responses to that one… You might want to ask about their syllabus – and does it match the ORDIT one?

Do they use the pink training licence? If so, do they go for the training option or the observation option? If you are told “we don’t do that because we do things better” then you are only getting half the answer. For some people, the “pink” is a useful tool – providing that it is properly supported by your training provider. For many, though, it is not helpful because an examiner on part three is nothing like real live learner drivers. Also, the DSA claim that a pink licence makes no overall difference to their pass/fail statistics. If all the school wants to do is get you out on a franchise on a pink without adequate support, walk away. On balance, I would generally avoid this option, unless you are really struggling with the concepts of teaching on the move, in which case, you may benefit from it. Expect the school to be flexible enough to meet your needs.

Don’t be persuaded by slick sales techniques – take your time, explore as many options as you can – and, importantly, don’t fall for fancy television advertising that suggests £30,000 per annum earnings. Very few instructors will achieve that. Yes, you can make a decent living teaching people to drive, but it is hard work and takes a lot of time building up your clientele. This process takes years – and that, in part, was why I decided not to continue. I don’t have years. I am planning to leave the country sometime during the next year. The UK ADI qualification is not transferable, so I cut my losses and walked away. Driving instruction was destined to remain firmly in my past. If you want independent advice about this matter, then I am happy enough to discuss it with you before you part with any money. Just use the contact form. I would rather you did that than waste huge amounts of money on an incompetent training provider.

I have recently been made an offer of ongoing regular freelance work in the rail industry – back in my specialisation of training. As this will be something that I can continue to do while domiciled in France, I have accepted. Going back to being a driving instructor was a decision driven by desperation rather than a desire to teach people to drive. Going back to the rail industry is something I am passionate about. The training and development field of this industry is where I want to be. That, above all else, is the difference that makes the difference. Finally, after eighteen lean months, my career is back upon its chosen track.

Ministers are pressing ahead with the idea of raising the driving age in the UK from the current 17 to 18 in an attempt to reduce the accident statistics in this age group.

The minimum legal driving age is expected to rise to 18 as part of reforms to cut the number of deaths caused on Britain’s roads by novice drivers.

Ministers are to propose a 12-month training period for new drivers, in effect preventing 17-year-olds from holding a full licence, The Times has learnt.

A consultation paper, to be published this autumn, will also suggest a zero alcohol limit for newly-qualified drivers of all ages for a year after they pass the test. Novice drivers found behind the wheel with alcohol in their blood would be forced to retake their test. Motorway driving may also be restricted to more experienced drivers.

From the perspective of a training professional, I can see flaws immediately. Firstly everyone is different and learns at a different rate. We also learn most quickly when younger rather than older. The driver who picks things up quickly will become restless taking a years worth of lessons that will not be teaching anything new – and in case ministers think in their ignorance that this is gaining experience, they are more stupid than I originally gave them credit for. Driving with a supervisor is not the same as driving alone, making decisions for oneself – and, yes, getting it wrong from time to time. Young drivers feature highly in accident statistics not just because of youth, it is because they lack that experience and twelve months worth of training is not the same thing, no matter how much ministers would like us to believe that it is.

A more rational approach would be to grant a probationary licence (similar to what happens with the motorcycle licence) that has some restrictions. Upgrading this to a full unrestricted licence would be granted following further assessment. I would not specify a set time span for exactly the same reason that I object to the arbitrary 12 month training period. I am also going to be contentious and state that I do not believe the DSA should carry out the assessments either. This could be carried out perfectly well in the private sector. My reasons? Well, partly because government agencies are notoriously hidebound and the DSA is no exception – and anyone who believes that a driving test is an assessment of competence does not understand the meaning of the word.

Let’s get that one cleared up while I’m on my hobby horse. Competence is the ability, knowledge and skills to consistently perform a task to a laid down standard. A driving test conducted over forty minutes misses the “consistently” element. It is insufficient to establish performance over a reasonable period of time in order to determine whether this is the driver’s normal behaviour. An assessment carried out by a qualified and competent assessor would cover a wider range of roads over a longer period of time. The outcome if successful could then go to the DVLA for an upgraded licence. If unsuccessful, further coaching and a reassessment. The aim here is to develop skills, not to restrict, penalise or punish, which is the approach government systems are likely to involve.

That said; if we accept that the state should be involved with licensing, then the DSA should be the licensing body for private companies offering the assessment service. Whether they are able to grasp the full meaning of competence in order to do so is a moot point, though.

Now, the zero alcohol limit. This is perhaps one of the dafter things to come out of government. Drinking and driving any vehicle is downright stupid – any intoxicating substance reduces the drivers cognitive abilities and makes them a danger to self and, importantly, others. To have a zero limit for one group and ignore all other drivers is cockeyed. Are middle aged drivers immune from the odd tipple before getting behind the wheel? So, if we are to have a zero limit, surely it should be all drivers affected… Or not… There is an alternative. A radical suggestion put forward by Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance is one that I am taken with – although I am doubtful that my fellow Britons would be sufficiently open minded to accept it. Have no limits on alcohol at all and have no penalties for drinking and driving. Anyone who causes injury or death while driving under the influence would then be prosecuted under existing law; The Offences Against the Persons Act; and face the much higher consequential penalties. It’s a thought, is it not?

Finally, motorways. The reason often given in the past for not including these on the driving test is that many driving test centres are nowhere near a motorway. This problem still exists. My proposal of ongoing assessment and coaching could include motorways as one of the upgrades as and when a driver is able to access such roads. Maybe, just maybe, we could then eliminate the tailgater and the middle lane hog…

Via Tim, this rather disturbing story:

An upper age limit for drivers could be imposed under plans being considered by the Government.

Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Transport, is to review the existing rules following calls for restrictions on very elderly drivers.

WTF!?! One minute we are being told that it is young drivers who are dangerous, now it’s the old gits.

She will launch a public consultation on the issue, and is understood to favour a tightening of the law if the move has sufficient public support. The Commons Transport Select Committee last week called for the minimum age for holding a full driving licence to be raised from 17 to 18.

Public support does not necessarily make it right. There is anecdotal evidence that some older drivers lose their faculties and therefore become become involved in an accident before they realise that they are a menace. Others realise before it comes to that and stop driving. On the other side of that coin is their wealth of experience. My mother-in-law, for example, is still managing to pilot her Saab about perfectly safely (and at a higher speed that I am usually comfortable with) and she is now in her eighties. My father, a septuagenarian, still drives a car and rides a motorcycle perfectly safely. Are they to be denied their means of transport merely because they have reached a certain age? Are we finally entering the world of Logan’s Run whereby life is curtailed on the basis of nothing more than an arbitrary age limit?

Under current rules there is no upper age limit for motorists, although over-70s must pass a medical check every three years in order to keep their licence.

That is a perfectly reasonable compromise. I hope, should it come to it, that I have the courage to surrender my driving licence if I become infirm to the point where I am likely to be dangerous. But, that should be my decision – along with medical advice – based upon my ability to continue driving; not some arbitrary government set age limit.

There are 1.5 million drivers over the age of 75 in Britain, including almost 35,000 aged over 90. While older people are known generally for their caution on the road, figures show that almost 11,000 car accidents last year involved drivers in the 70-plus bracket.

As Tim points out, what do those figures mean? Taking them at face value, I make that around 0.7% of those drivers have been involved in an accident. So, because the older generation have an accident rate of 0.7% per annum, they are to be legislated off the roads. It doesn’t look good for the under 25s now, does it? Also, involved in an accident does not mean the same thing as caused an accident. Given a balance of probabilities, a proportion of that 0.7% were caused by someone else.

William Armstrong, a coroner in Norwich, said he backed the plans. This month he presided over the inquest of George Pyman, 92, a motorist with one eye who died after pulling into the path of an oncoming vehicle.

Under current licensing arrangements, having sight in only one eye is not regarded as a disability, so is therefore irrelevant. As a motorcyclist, I am aware that plenty of drivers of all age groups make this error. It is not especially uncommon. William Armstrong is a fool. One accident does not make a case for legislation.

“Imposing an upper limit is something that should be considered as a road safety measure,” He said. “I fully accept that there are… civil liberty issues. But there are also road safety issues.”

Of course it is a civil liberties issue. These totalitarian monsters are talking about denying someone a driving licence on the basis of anecdote and an arbitrary upper age limit – despite their own figures demonstrating that less than 1% of these drivers are involved in an accident. As for the road safety issue, the matter of holding a driving licence should be one of competence and medical fitness, not age.

What is it with these people and their two-dimensional thinking? If they had proposed a programme of continuous assessment (carried out in the private sector) and development of drivers throughout their driving career, they might just be onto something; but, no, they opt for the populist and simplistic approach and penalise a law abiding minority.

Still, it makes a good headline.

I don’t often agree with Neil Harding, but for once we are in broad agreement even if it is for slightly different reasons. Neil is appalled at the money Liberty has wasted pursuing the recent case in the court of human rights. 

But spending money in support of motorists who just want to avoid speeding restrictions demonstrates how wayward Liberty as an organisation have become…

Ah, well, I don’t agree with everything Neil says here… This was not about speeding motorists wanting to avoid being caught or avoiding restrictions; rather it was about something altogether more fundamental. However, before we get back to that, let’s clear away a few of the strawmen so that we can see just what the argument is all about. What it is not about is smoking:

With the smoking ban coming into effect on Sunday, there have been renewed articles in the press about smoker’s civil liberties being infringed (there are even articles suggesting our cultural heritage and artistic expression will be damaged - (it seems any madcap idea will do to protect this dirty habit - smokers are getting increasingly desperate)). If they wasn’t so serious it would be funny…

Different argument. Liberty’s case has nothing to do with this, so it is irrelevant. Let’s stick to the point.

Okay, driving. Er, actually, it isn’t really about driving either. It may seem that way, but it isn’t.

I agree with those who comment such as Urko:

If I got caught by a speed camera (unlikely) I’d just pay up because I’d deserve the fine, however I do question the siting of a few I’ve seen. I agree I’d rather a poor driver was going slowly, although given the numbers of fines being handed out, poor drivers still seem to be zooming past the cameras.

Indeed – my general reaction to those who get caught is to question their observation skills. I do, however disagree with those who suggest – as Neil does here – hiding the cameras:

…lets talk about why these things were made visible in the first place. Should we not be observing the speed limit without ‘looking’ for cameras. In my opinion they should all be hidden and if you don’t want to be caught breaking the law then DON’T SPEED.

There is a hint of vindictiveness about this position. It is the car-hater who wants people to get caught. Making them visible is to use them as a deterrent. To encourage people to obey them and therefore the speed limit they are enforcing. That their effectiveness is limited (whether hidden or not) is evident in the amount of fines collected. If they worked, they would not raise any revenue at all.

However, that, too, is another argument; one I’ve discussed before; one about driver behaviour and education along with effective enforcement of road traffic law. It is not one that this case is about.

No, having put aside the irrelevant and the strawmen, we are left with Liberty supporting a case whereby two British drivers claim that their human rights are being violated because they are required to incriminate themselves.

They have a point. If an offence has occurred, it is beholden on the enforcement agencies to gather their evidence and for the CPS to prosecute. In the case of fixed penalty notices; faced with evidence of their guilt, the accused is offered an option of coughing up or going to court. Most, sensibly, take the former option.

There is a problem with this method, however. Cameras – at least some cameras – can tell what vehicle was used, but not who was using it. So a vital piece of evidence is missing; the identity of the perpetrator. What happens next is that the the owner of the vehicle (in the case of privately owned vehicles is likely to have been the driver) is required to fill in the missing piece of evidence. In other words, the accused is being expected to build the prosecution’s case against himself.

That, frankly, is absurd. The drivers in question therefore had a valid point to make. Was it worth Liberty taking it to the court of human rights? No. They were on a hiding to nothing from the off. That said, it doesn’t invalidate the underlying point, merely that there are more pressing civil liberties issues to deal with.

For myself, I would do as Urko would – take the rap, kick myself for being a damned fool and make sure it doesn’t happen again. As I tell trainee driving instructors; if you want to keep a clean licence; obey the speed limits. It really is that simple.

In an interesting article in today’s Telegraph Paul Smith from SafeSpeed discusses speed cameras (euphemistically referred to as “safety” cameras) and why they don’t seem to be saving lives as their proponents claim.

British road safety is in trouble. The number of road deaths isn’t falling as expected and recent figures from Europe put our rate of road safety improvement behind 20 other European nations. We used to have the safest roads in the world but we have been overtaken.

Although it appears that Department for Transport (DfT) targets are being met, it’s only the trend in serious injuries that provides this positive result. Unfortunately for the DfT, and for the rest of us, the numbers being hospitalised following road crashes haven’t fallen for a decade. The only reasonable conclusion is that serious injuries are not falling either, but DfT statistics suffer an increasing degree of under-reporting.

When asked to investigate why road deaths were not falling as expected, the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) deduced that “some drivers must be getting worse”.

That last paragraph tends to be the nub of the argument. I have mentioned before that there is more to road safety than reducing the speed at which people travel. Yes, indeed, the physical laws relating to moving objects do support the assertion that reducing speed will reduce the consequence of collisions and in some cases may mean that the collision does not happen. But… But… driving – and roadcraft – is a much more complex matter than merely the laws of moving objects. It is all about hazard recognition and management of risk in a dynamic environment and it is this aspect that Smith concentrates upon:

I have spent the last six years looking at road safety as a system and I’m pretty sure I know what’s going wrong. Modern traffic policies are making drivers worse. This has been allowed to happen because the DfT has no working definition of what it means to be a good driver or even a proper understanding of what drivers really do. Yet driver behaviour, specifically the quality of driver behaviour, is the hidden fundamental on which all road safety depends. Unfortunately, the DfT has been taking driver quality for granted or possibly ignoring it altogether, an issue that Sir John Whitmore addressed in his most recent Telegraph Motoring column (June 2).

The process of driving is one of real-time risk management. Drivers who manage risk well stay out of trouble. They recognise risky situations and wait, hang back or steer clear.

Indeed, that is what I used to teach learner drivers; weigh up the situation and drop back rather than get involved. One instructor I used to know referred to the tendency to rush in as SIDS – self induced distress syndrome – and he had a point. Dropping back and letting the situation sort itself out without becoming involved adds little if any time to the overall journey and can make the difference between finishing at the desired destination or in the morgue. It also makes the difference between a relaxed journey and one fraught with stress. So, to those who campaign for lower speeds and for ever more cameras to enforce those lower limits; yes, lower speed applied at the right time is a solution. However, it is the driver who is aware of the risks and evaluates them effectively who makes the best use of that approach. A bad driver remains a bad driver at whatever speed he is travelling and will be unable to effectively regulate speed according to risk. That is  point that Smith is making here:

It’s not so much what we see that matters, but what we do with what we see. We use it to manage risk.

However:

Sadly, most people haven’t been taught to drive as risk managers. We are taught manual skills (steering, clutch control, gear changing) and rules (go this way or that, stop here, don’t stop here, don’t speed, don’t drink and drive).

I dispute this. When teaching people to drive motor cars and ride motorcycles, effective risk management was a part of the package that I delivered. We didn’t necessary call it that; terms such as “the system” and “roadcraft” or “effective observation” were used – but it amounts to the same thing; evaluate the risk and manage one’s approach to it; right gear, right speed, right road position and informing other road users of one’s intentions. I have never met a driving or riding instructor who does not take this approach. Learners are taught risk management. The problem is that their initial learning is a fairly condensed period at the beginning of their driving career and once on their own, there is a temptation to forget. There is no subsequent encouragement for drivers to improve or develop their skills – how many people are aware of the passplus scheme and how large a proportion of new drivers take it up? Combine this lack of continuous development with inane “speed kills” propaganda and is it any wonder driving is being dumbed down?

In particular, we learn to adjust our speed in order to remain safe in the prevailing road, weather and traffic conditions. The speed at which you choose to drive is an output from your own internal risk management system. Yet the DfT regards speed as an “input”.

This echoes what I have just said – the driver regulates speed according to the situation. The constant barrage of speed limits (many of which appear to have little to do with prevailing risk) is clearly not helping. Nor for that matter do increasingly stupid “traffic management” schemes, traffic lights on roundabouts, a plethroa of road signs and traffic calming measures.

Not only do they neglect driver quality, but they are actively making us worse. We are prioritising and concentrating on the wrong things. At the heart of our policies are speed cameras, which have largely replaced comprehensive traffic policing. The dream is that cameras reduce risk, but the reality is that they are reducing the quality of our risk management.

Smith has a point here, but there is another aspect to consider. If we accept that speed limits are appropriate – and I do accept this, I merely question the risk assessment that took place with many of them – then enforcement is a reasonable consequence. Again, I have no beef with enforcement. I have always argued that a traffic police officer will make an overall judgement based upon the conditions. In other words, the traffic cop is making the same evaluation of risk as the speeding driver. This may make the difference between a prosecution and a caution. Generally, I would prefer this approach. However, there is a dark side. I was recently reading about people’s experience with this in Motorcycle Rider (a publication to which I occasionally contribute). On these occasions, the police issued prosecution notices when the rider either was not speeding or was well under the speed claimed by the police. On one such occasion, the magistrates dismissed the case because the police officer was proved to have lied. Whatever their faults, a camera will not lie about the speed (at least, I’ve not come across any that have). And, frankly, if you get caught by one, given that they are clearly visible, I might just start asking questions about your observation and hazard recognition skills.

Cameras give us legal compliance targets, not safety targets.

That rather sums up the two-dimensional thinking of this government. They have taken the same trite mentality to health and education with the same piss-poor results.

The only possible route forward is for the DfT to admit its fatal mistake and pull the plug on the failed speed camera programme. This would certainly be a dramatic step, but it is an essential one, as a mere change of emphasis would leave the false dogma intact.

Time to get those pigs fed and out of the hanger, methinks. Much as I agree with Smith’s rationale – as it is one I share – given that the speed camera mentality is burgeoning across continental Europe as well as here, I’m afraid that they are here to stay. Petitions such as the one he is publicising don’t work. When was the last time politicians changed policy on the back of a petition? And given that the anti-car mob currently have the ear of the current administration as do the rest of the enviroloon lobby, the likelihood of SafeSpeed getting speed cameras scrapped is as likely as me getting those pigs scrambled…

Nice idea, though.

The old driving test fraud is a regular news item. I suppose, therefore, that another such story hitting the BBC News comes as no great surprise.

Tens of thousands of people are paying fraudsters to sit their driving test for them, the BBC has learned.

Tens of thousands? That level of fraud seems to me incredible. The DSA claims that they have been investigating and are planning arrests, but systematic fraud to that level so far undetected (in which case how do they know?) seems just a little like hyperbole to me. The radio bulletin talked of tens of thousands of unlicensed drivers out on the roads. If the DSA has the evidence, then presumably  they are taking action against both the fraudsters who take the tests and the drivers who are paying for the scam. Neither has been expanded upon, so given that evidence is somewhat sparse, I’m a little sceptical about the numbers quoted.

Now, I’ve a nasty suspicious mind and on hearing about this on the radio this morning, I wondered how long it would take for the story to get linked to identity management. About halfway through the day as it turned out. By the end of the day, the same bulletin was talking of biometric verification of candidates, including fingerprints and iris scans.

So given that we have photo licences, how is the fraud working?

The scam works when the fraudsters pass themselves off as the person in the photo on the provisional licence that candidates must bring to their test.

Okay, so I realise that examiners are busy people, but here is the first little clue as to why any form of identity card is weak. If an examiner cannot tell – or is too rushed to have the time to check properly – that the person presenting the licence is not the same as the person in the photograph, then basic human instinct for a “wrong ’un” is already undermined. People have a natural tendency to trust official documentation – even those that you would expect to know better. But before you criticise the examiners, just remember how many of these things they are looking at on a daily basis. That is why identity cards don’t work.

The head of the DSA’s fraud team, Andy Rice, said: “It is quite common for them to do over 100, sometimes over 200 tests, before we’re in a position to arrest them. We’re into the tens of thousands.”

You would think that the DSA would pick up on this rather more quickly – given that the fraudsters can be incredibly stupid, such as this gentleman from a couple of years back:

Sorhaindo paid £5,995 to the Driving Standards Agency with his own credit card before his activities were finally uncovered by a suspicious driving examiner.

Sorhaindo was caught because an examiner became suspicious – not because the DSA’s system picked up the little matter of the same credit card being used to pay for multiple tests.

This is a government agency. By government agency standards, it is probably one of the better ones. Now, just ask yourself – before some bright spark suggests that ID cards would solve this problem – how well do you think an ID card would be at picking this up? Clue: We already have the evidence before us.