In-car cameras are in the news at the moment. Personally, I have been experimenting with them since 2009. My favoured device at the time was not designed as an in-car camera, but it worked perfectly for what I wanted to do back then. My biggest gripe with the purpose-designed cameras in the intervening period has been that the field of vision is too wide and everything is distorted. I wanted HD-quality, but that’s no good if everything looks like it’s wrapped around a fishbowl.
Things have come a long way in five years, though. At the moment I have my eyes on the Hero Go Pro. It is a professional-quality HD camera. Here’s a sample of the kind of footage it captures:The only drawback is the lack of GPS logging. Maybe that will come on a future model.
Anyway, this isn’t a run-of-the-mill dashcam. It’s intended for people who get out and about – much like the Contour unit I was using previously. It isn’t cheap, and one of the accessories – which is also not cheap – is a suction cup mount which allows you to mount the camera on boats, cars, and so on. Most of the reviews for the mount are positive, but one of them isn’t. Look at this:
A first trial of my brand new GoPro hero 3 cam ended in a huge disappointment. I used the suction cup as specified in the description. During a flight it was mounted on the wingtip of a single engined aircraft which is a flat and smooth surface. I cleaned and dried the spot where I mounted the suction cup carefully before placing it, just to make sure that the suction cup was fastened correctly as recommended. After a 20 minutes flight with a speed of 110 Mph I looked on my IPhone to set the camera in the photo mode instead of the video mode. I was very enthusiast of what I saw at the display of my IPhone. Suddenly the contact with the camera was lost and I looked at the wing and saw that I lost my camera………unfortunately above the water. 🙁 I wonder if GoPro has a solution for this as the suction cup does not meet the specification as mentioned and I was not able to see one single picture or video of my new cam.
I couldn’t stop laughing when I read it. This character had spent several hundred quid on a professional quality video camera and suction mount, and then gone and stuck it on the end of the wing of an aeroplane! Over water!
It’s a bit like buying a Ferrari and then driving it on a stock car track. Or a white silk shirt, then creosoting the fence while you’re wearing it.
…more than a quarter of holidaymakers are afraid to drive abroad.
Unless their entire client base consists of authentic Chelsea tractor drivers, I’ll give it 6 months before it goes under (although it is a free course which is being funded from somewhere, so it might survive just a little longer). The article also identifies the “Top 5 Fears When Driving Abroad”:
Not recognising road signs
Getting lost
Going around roundabouts
Trying to navigate
Driving on the other side of road
Errm, well actually, with the possible exception of #5 (and not even then in some cases), that’s exactly the same list most would give if asked about driving on British roads. So it’s hardly the basis for a business plan. If people are too stupid to look up the necessary details about road signs and procedures for the country they intend to visit before they go, it’s going to take a little more than a free course to sort them out.
Of course, it helps if you realise that the company behind it – SkyScanner – describes itself as follows in its “About us” section:
…a leading global travel search site, providing instant online comparisons for millions of flights, as well as car hire and hotels.
It’s not quite as altruistic as it first appears, is it? It’s not even a “school” – it’s a course (with an unspecified number of classes), which is apparently being delivered by driving instructors who have “teamed up with” (i.e. they must be getting paid) SkyScanner to deliver the “free” course. That’s a convoluted way of saying that it is a novel advertising exercise. I mean, there’s no problem with it, but you shouldn’t turn it into something it isn’t.
I can’t imagine there’d be much opportunity for practical sessions, either.
Someone has asked via the Contact Form if they would be able to hire a car in order to travel to Heathrow, having only passed their driving test during the last 3 months.
There is no way to be certain, but there is a good chance you would not be able to hire a car. Here are a few examples from various national and semi-national rental companies.
Enterprise – in the UK, all drivers must be 25 or older. They do appear to have a “youthful driver” option for 18-24 year olds, but when I tried it it simply warned me that many branches have age restrictions and to call the branch in question. They do not appear to have a minimum period for having held the licence, though.
Thrifty – drivers must be 21 or older, and have held a licence for at least 12 months. Those under 30 are restricted to basic models. They also have conditions associated with points on the licence and previous convictions for drink driving, etc.
Avis – you can rent a car from age 17 (they say) but a surcharge applies if you’re under 25 and you are restricted on the models you can choose from. You need to have held your licence for 36 months, though, which means in reality that you must be at least 20.
Hertz – I’ve used these before, but their website is useless and I cannot find their terms anywhere. I’m pretty sure you have to have held your licence for at least 12 months, though.
This is just a sample, but it is clear that their are restrictions on new drivers renting cars from the major companies – a combination of age and length of having held the licence, plus a surcharge even if they offer the service.
My advice would be to either go through the booking procedure online for the respective company, or to phone them up and ask.
Read some of the inane comments (written in crayon before being transposed by the BBC, I’d imagine) at the bottom of that story and you can see that not everyone is happy.
When Arsene goes, we’ll be in the same kind of trouble Manchester Utd were after Ferguson left. These idiots can’t see this.
Discussing the party’s relatively poor performance in London on Radio 4, [Suzanne] Evans [the Party Spokesman/person] seemed to agree with the host that they had difficulty appealing to the “educated, cultural and young.”
It has been described as “a sound bite UKIP would rather forget”. But you can’t help seeing the truth in it – UKIP and its policies appeals to the kind of person who is likely to start every conversation they get involved with by saying “I’m not a racist, but…”, but who then launches into various illogical explanations about why immigrants are bad. So it is quite true that educated and more tolerant people might not vote for them.
What IS worrying, therefore, is how many people across the country appear to be so uneducated and intolerant if you go by UKIP’s showing in the election.
Like it or not, Britain is not a balanced country as far as racial tolerance (or attitude to being a part of Europe) goes. To try and counter that, there is a lot of artificial bias – positive discrimination, if you like – but all this does is add fuel to the fire for those who already hold nationalist views. Without some of that positive discrimination (and laws prohibiting it, of course), bonfires of burning immigrants would be a commonplace thing on our streets.* As a result, the pent-up frustration at not being able to take such action means that one way or another parties like UKIP will always have support.
Worryingly, such support appears to come from places you would least expect it to. I note that in today’s papers, it is reported that the BBC has received almost 1,200 complaints about its “biased” election coverage. I must say that on election day last week the way the BBC was reporting the results on its election web site made me wonder if I was missing something. Labour had made significant gains, and yet this was being reported in such a manner that you got the distinct impression they’d lost everything (there were 73 complaints about this). Tory and LibDem losses were huge, and yet were skimmed over somewhat. It was only later in the day that Labour’s improved performance compared to the last General Election started to be acknowledged in any way, even though the numbers hadn’t changed. I was certain then – and even more so now this story has emerged – that the BBC had responded to complaints and changed their tack.
Apparently, it is the highest number of complaints the BBC has ever received over its coverage of any party during an election. However, as you’d expect, the BBC denies everything, saying its coverage was proportionate and fair. From what I saw, it wasn’t. The BBC’s interpretations and headlines did not represent the numbers actually coming from the counts.
Another story from today shows how unpleasant political correctness of all kinds (not just that involving politics) can be when it crops up in the midst of such a bias-fest. Newsnight, a BBC political programme, has been dumbed down over the years along with much of the BBC’s other output. These days, Newsnight likes to invite celebrities on to the panel to comment on questions put forward by the audience. It did this last week, and featured footballer Joey Barton alongside yet another UKIP member, Louise Bours. When asked to comment on the UKIP showing, Barton responded as outlined in these two paragraphs:
The footballer said last week’s outcome – when UKIP won 27% of the overall vote – was far from a ringing endorsement of the party, since only 34% of the eligible electorate had voted.
Describing UKIP as the “best of a bad bunch”, he added: “So if I am somewhere and there were four really ugly girls, I’m thinking, ‘Well, she’s not the worst’, because that is all you are, that is all you are to us.”
Now, anyone with any sense would have stopped at the “bad bunch” part. But this is Joey Barton we’re talking about, and he didn’t.
Bours then:
…accused Mr Barton of “ignorance” and having his “brains in his feet”.
Barton’s comment could have been made far more eloquently, and with much more humour. As it was, it was clumsy and immature given the setting. But any reference to a woman or girl in anything other than a context implying female superiority is always going to provide a political correctness card the size of a skyscraper to any politician appearing on TV if they needed to belittle someone’s beliefs or opinions. Of course, if a female (or gay) person had likened something to picking the best looking of four ugly blokes at a bar, there’d be no case to answer. See how positive discrimination works?
In actual fact, if you look at Barton’s comments without any blinkers on, Bours’ comments to Barton were actually far more offensive, and show how easily such attitudes come to the surface when UKIP is challenged. They were personal and specific, whereas Barton’s were generic. But it’s funny how UKIP and its policies can border on racism, and yet become so sanctimonious when sexism is detected.
Their policy on immigration is what sold UKIP to the majority of those who voted for them. Tony Blair has recently referred to what is behind the UKIP facade as “pretty nasty and unpleasant”. It seems that not a day goes by where the truth in this comment is highlighted. In December last year UKIP politician, Victoria Ayling, was criticised for a video, made while she was still a Tory. In it, she says:
…multiculturalism doesn’t work, Britishness does,
…multiculturalism is dead, I’m allowed to say that, but maybe Britishness is waving the National Front flag a bit.
…We must control immigration. We cannot sustain the numbers coming in; the strains on our infrastructure are enormous. Control should be done fairly and the points system like they have in Australia and all those coming here should be encouraged to speak English so they can integrate,
…I just want to send the lot back but I can’t say that.
Elsewhere in the footage, she says:
Do we want the French to order our troops?
Sod that. Just think of Waterloo, bastards.
She claims that her comments were taken “out of context”, but I think we have the context just right. UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, made some extremely slight noises of concern, but I note that Ayling may stand as the UKIP candidate for Great Grimsby in next year’s general election.
Any normal and fair-minded person would have a perfect right to be concerned if a group of Romanian people suddenly moved in next door.
UKIP says he was “tired” when he made the comments, so I guess they’re suggesting that he meant exactly the opposite of what he said. Of course he did! And then there was a more recent radio interview, where he was quizzed over his previous comments when:
…he said he felt “uncomfortable” about the fact so little English was spoken on a train journey he took from London to his Kent home.
Still more recently – and quite probably after the realisation that its performance in the latest election was Serious Stuff – it seems that UKIP has sacked a newly-elected councillor for “racist and homophobic remarks”. Unfortunately, the councillor in question is an extreme example of the sort of thinking that attracts people to UKIP, and you can’t help wonder if he would have been sacked 12 months ago if he’d have made similar comments. In many respects, what he said was merely an extremely crude rendering of what others have been saying (for example, that one above about foreign speakers on the train).
* Note that this is a joke. Unfortunately, I have to explain this sort of thing for the hard-of-understanding types out there (like that crazy woman in Manchester who wrote to me a while back).
Most people will have heard the classic version of 11th century King Canute attempting to hold back the waves, and failing. Well, it seems we now have a modern equivalent.
The National Union of Students (NUS) is bringing in a new “initiative” to stem the tide of binge-drinking amongst students (the Home Office is also involved).
…the aim is to create a “cafe culture that runs into the evening”.
Not that old “cafe culture” thing again! The British and “cafe culture” are poles apart – and the gap is even wider where students are involved. One of the prime considerations for people going to university is the night life – the choice of university for many students is based purely on the craic available in the host city. “Cafe culture” doesn’t even appear on the list.
It’s like tapas bars. They’re great if you go to Spain, but in Britain they’re both expensive (compared to Spain) and pretentious. We have one in West Bridgford, and you should see the kind or people who go in there (actually, West Bridgford is probably the only place one would work in Nottingham). And “cafe culture” is the same – the British just don’t do “cafe culture” very well at all.
Driving past any of the numerous student complexes in Nottingham (this is yet another way in which the City Council is screwing up this place – instead of building houses, it builds student flats, and then tears up green belt for the houses) you can see the level of “cafe culture”, as the current residents proudly display their empty vodka and Jägermeister bottles on their windowsills. You can also assess how well the “cafe culture” went the previous evening from the number of smashed bottles and glasses in the roads around student digs when you go to pick up a pupil from one of them.
The true British ethic is also well illustrated by the boards outside trendy bars (“shots and bombs, £1 all night”), and this is where you should start if you’re going to try and prevent students getting rat-arsed at every opportunity. If they had to pay £4 a pop like the rest of us, they’d soon cut down.
I noticed someone comment recently that the independent driving part of the driving test is pointless and a waste of time simply because it doesn’t matter if someone fails to follow the directions accurately.
This is a rather short-sighted view. I’ve noticed time and again that in the early stages of learning, when I am giving directions, I can train pupils to use the MSM routine with no problem. The fun starts the first time I let them choose a route (maybe driving home) or if we are actually attempting a test-like independent drive with a map or road signs. Now that my voice isn’t a trigger any more, the majority of pupils immediately start missing mirror checks and signals, and some of those cases are clearly down to not having that verbal trigger. Prior to the independent driving assessment this was rarely dealt with, and it certainly wasn’t tested for.
The driving test is 40 minutes long. Until it becomes a continuously assessed year-long event (and that will be roughly around the same time that hell freezes over), it will always have limitations. Introducing the independent driving element definitely addressed one potential issue that the test previously did not.
Of course, how people choose to drive when they have passed is not the fault of the test, the examiner, the instructor, or any other third party who wouldn’t have been involved if the driver hadn’t chosen to learn to drive in the first place. It is, however, the fault of the parents – in large part.
And don’t get me started on special needs candidates who, according to some, “can’t cope” with the independent drive segment of the test. You have to wonder what these drivers will do when they pass and start driving around on their own. If they cause an accident through not driving properly, people can still die.
The simple fact is that if you go the wrong way, but do it properly, then you haven’t done anything wrong. You’re not being tested on navigation skills, you’re being tested on your ability to drive safely. However, being in the wrong lane for the turn you are going to take is NOT safe. The examiner knows this, and it’s where the faults usually come from – directly (if you cut across traffic) or indirectly (if the examiner reminds you where he wants you to go to avoid ending up on a motorway or in a canal, and you panic). Unfortunately, in real life – especially with new drivers – what someone says they were going to do and what they actually did do don’t always marry up.
Here’s an example from a lesson tonight. I had to stop a pupil from entering a tight, two-laned roundabout which she had approached too fast. Even if the roundabout had been clear, there was no way she would have kept in lane had she entered it at the speed she was doing, and there was no way of knowing what she would have done – or which exit she would have headed for in her panic – once she realised what was happening. Subsequently, there was no way whatsoever I was going to wait to find out, and I used the dual controls. After we stopped to discuss it, she insisted that she was going to brake, but that I had beaten her to it. I pointed out the following (more diplomatically):
if my internal panic-o-meter maxes out then I will take action
if I have to take action, then you were too late
it doesn’t matter what you say you were going to do – you didn’t do it by the time I had to
I am not going to risk my life, your life, other peoples lives, or my car gambling on whether or not you will react in time – or on how you will react
…and the examiner will view it in exactly the same way
It seems that the original comments about independent driving stem from a discussion on another forum, where someone thrice removed from an alleged situation had heard a story from the parents of a test candidate who had been failed for being in the wrong lane at a roundabout. The hearsay reports that the candidate had been asked to take the second exit on a roundabout as part of the independent drive, but he signalled and positioned as if to take the first. He had insisted to his parents that he was going to take the first exit, and the parents had contacted this thrice-removed ADI, who was also a family member. As you’d expect, the usual suspects have stacked up against the examiner, even though all of them are even further removed from being associated with any reliable facts. Several have even gone so far as to state categorically that it “shouldn’t have been a fail”. No one who is so far away from knowing the full story can possibly make such an assertion and be taken seriously.
In my own example from above, if you just say that I used the dual controls but the pupil insisted she was going to stop, it sounds like I was somehow in the wrong. It is only when you have the full facts that anything like the true situation starts to emerge. My pupil can argue all she likes, but she was going too fast and could easily have hit another vehicle, so the question over whether or not she’d have braked and given us both whiplash into the bargain becomes moot.
There is every likelihood that the failed test candidate in the forum example was acting irrationally enough for the examiner to decide not to risk it developing any further. That is quite probably why he took action, and correctly so. If nothing else, those people who are thrice removed from the events should certainly consider it instead of just trying to trash the DVSA.
Independent driving is about showing that you can drive a car safely without being prompted to use MSM with frequent directions all the time – something a learner will have to be able to do the moment they pass their test. Being tested this way is better than not being tested at all, which the old version of the test was guilty of.
The good weather brought in a flood of “I’m not very well” calls today, which was fine by me because I would have missed the FA Cup on TV otherwise. Until Arsenal scored that third goal, I would have happily rather have spent a whole week teaching problem pupils than go through that.
Being an Arsenal fan this season has been very painful. We’re easily good enough to win the title, the Champions League, and any other competition there is out there. But we didn’t. Again.
What people forget is that we still did well in those other competitions. We were top of the table for longer than anyone else this season, but a disastrous couple of months earlier this year killed off our challenge. Arguably, injuries to Theo Walcott and Aaron Ramsey were the deciders, but I don’t like thinking of us as relying on individuals – the rest of the team is good, too. It’s just bloody inconsistent.
It was nice to hear Aaron Ramsey say:
…the manager has always believed in us. This [is] for Arsene – and we now know he’ll put pen to paper.
Let’s hope that some of the Arsenal supporters out there also start thinking the same way – because I’ll tell you now, one of the biggest obstacles Arsenal have had to deal with over the last few seasons (and one that will screw things up in future seasons if it keeps going) is the loud mouthed anti-Wenger brigade demanding that he be sacked. When Wenger eventually leaves, we’ll be screwed for a long time.
Arsene Wenger didn’t choose to sell the likes of Robin van Persie, Cesc Fabregas, Samir Nasri, or any of the others who were greedily following the scent of money (well, maybe not Fabregas, but all the others to be sure). He had no choice in the matter. Can you imagine the effect it would have on a player – and those around him – if he were forced to see out his contract when he had made every effort to leave? At any club? Arsene has never bowed to that sort of pressure, and hopefully he never will.
I think I’ve mentioned before that in an interview last year – shortly before they bought Mesut Özil – Ivan Gazidis (CEO) implied that Arsenal had been following a strict financial path following the move to the Emirates, which had come to an end and money was now available for players. In spite of targeting several other players, none were available – and there’s not much you can do about that.
Even now, after today’s win, there are those people out there trying to stab Wenger in the back. The simple truth is that some of the poor performances Arsenal have put in have been down to the players and not the manager. Someone who can play as if they were at the top of the world some weeks, and then have a run of absolute stinkers, is at fault – not their manager. IN fact, credit has to go to the manager – as Aaron Ramsey has clearly articulated – for sticking with them. And that has always been one of Wenger’s strengths. Mark my words: when Arsene leaves, Arsenal will have the turmoil that other clubs have who change managers. The Club is never going to be as free with its money as Chelsea or Manchester City (unless a loopy billionaire buys them) – it can’t be, because it doesn’t have it in the same quantities. What it DOES have is Arsene Wenger’s astute management. Without that, we’d be nowhere.
These anti-Wengerites seem to think that every time a player puts in a bad show, or if he becomes disliked by the fans, you simply dump him in a skip and buy a better one. They’re idiots.
Anyway, Arsenal didn’t put on a classic display by any means, though they came close for large parts of the match after the first 25 minutes (and especially towards the end and in extra time). They came away with 65% possession and over 30 shots at goal (which certainly didn’t look likely after 10 minutes when they were already 2-0 down). All three goals were impressive one way or the other (that back heel for the second through the defender’s legs was deliberate).
Anyway, a huge relief in the end. Well done Arsene and the Team – you all deserve it.
(And well done Hull City for putting in a great performance themselves).
As I said in that discussion about parallel parking, however you look at it all it boils down to is reversing into a space behind another vehicle in a reverse ‘S’ path (or an ‘S’ path on the right side of the road, so USA readers bear that in mind). However, success, failure, and reproducibility are a direct function of the actual method used.
When I first became an instructor I tried various methods based on the ones my trainers had taught me. However, I wasn’t happy with any of them because they were so unreliable. Coming from a scientific background I wanted something that was as precise as possible, because it would then be reproducible – and reproducibility is what catches many learners out when they are trying to master this manoeuvre.
This is the method I developed as a result. Reversing into the target space an ‘S’ path is variable unless you set boundaries. This is why many of those other methods yield such variable results, because they are based on judgement, and most learner drivers don’t have that skill developed to a high enough level. This one doesn’t require such skills, and works based on fixed positions.
Step 1 is to drive up alongside the target vehicle, slightly ahead of it, and about ½ to ¾ metre away from it.
Step 2 is to reverse back until the back of your vehicle is level with the back of the target. The reason you do it this way instead of trying to start level to begin with is that you will need to look behind you. If you do that while you’re are still moving forward, you could make contact with the target car. Once you have stopped, work out where you need to aim – you want to pick something at about 45°. On the diagrams, it is the red ‘X’.
Step 3 is to steer full lock to the left and move backwards until the car is aiming at the 45° point you chose (the red ‘X’). The actual angle you go for isn’t super-critical, but getting the same angle consistently each time is.
Step 4 is to straighten the wheels and reverse back in a straight line towards the kerb. Stop when your rear nearside wheel is about ½ metre away from the kerb. This is the second vital key position.
Step 5 is to steer full lock to the right and reverse back until you are parallel with the kerb. Once you are, stop and straighten your wheels.
The method is very simple. Summarising the stages, you have:
stop slightly ahead of the target car
level up the back ends
use full lock to turn about 45° from your original position
straighten the wheels and reverse back to the kerb
use full lock to swing back in, then straighten the wheels
Once you’re in, and parallel with the kerb, just stop. You don’t need to reverse back any further (which might take you too far back, so you’d get faulted), nor do you need to move forward to close the gap. If you follow the method reasonably closely, you will be in the right place.
The real trick is being able to get to a consistent angle each time and to judge the distance from the kerb reliably – those two things work together and are critical. Not being able to do these is what makes any method unreliable. It’s like baking a cake. Use the correct quantities of your ingredients and you get a cake at the end. Use the wrong quantities and you get a mess.
A useful tip. When you pick your red ‘X’ (45°) position, try to pick something as far away as possible. Go for a house feature, such as a chimney, or even a distant tree. Avoid using a nearer point, such as a car parked on the other side of the road if there are more distant objects available.
How far ahead of the target car should I stop?
It doesn’t really matter as long as the back end of your car is further forward than the back end of the target. Just don’t overdo it and end up completely beyond the target vehicle. As a rough guide when using another car, make your wing mirrors level with the front of the target car’s bonnet (or its boot if it is facing the other way). Obviously, a lorry or van is much bigger, so you’ll have to judge for yourself.
How can I tell when I’m level with the back of the other car?
Your instructor will be able to tell you when to stop in the right place. At that point, look out of the nearside rear passenger window and look where the target car’s back end appears. Use that as your reference in future.
Do I have to be exactly level with the other car?
No, not exactly. Just near enough. If you’re much too far forwards you might clip the other car when you swing in. If you’re much too far back you’ll just finish further back than you need to be. But a bit either way shouldn’t matter.
How can I work out where 45° is?
Don’t get too hung up on the number. It is only relevant for picking something to aim at. As long as you can pick more or less 45° – and get it about the same each time – the method will work. You may find that you can judge it by eye (I demonstrate to pupils how I can do it with my eyes closed, but I have more experience than them and the majority cannot do it that way). So a reference often helps.
To get a reference, park at the side of the road and have your instructor point out something – a tree, a chimney stack, a window on a house, etc. – which is at about 45° to your current position. Look at where that object is in relation to your car and head position – maybe the middle of your door mirror, the corner of the windscreen, etc. That becomes your reference point in future. So when you’re ready to angle the car, check what your reference point lines up with (a tree, a chimney, and so on), and then go back slowly until you’re pointing the car straight at it.
Do I have choose exactly 45°?
No, but try to be reasonably close to it. When you move, the angle reduces slightly anyway. You don’t want to go too far past whatever you have picked to aim at, that’s all. The only critical part is to make sure you get more or less the same angle each time. If your angle varies, the rest of the procedure will, too.
For most pupils – many of whom don’t understand what 45° actually means – I just call it the ‘magic angle’, and keep numbers out of it altogether and stress the reference point I help them establish.
How do I know when I’m the right distance away from the kerb?
Get your instructor to stop you in the right place, then use your nearside door mirror to show you where the kerb is. In my car, if the door mirror is angled to show about a thumb’s width underneath the door handle before starting the manoeuvre, then the car will be the correct distance from the kerb just before you lose sight of the road tarmac while you’re doing it.
Am I allowed to adjust my mirrors on my test?
Of course you are. Just try to avoid doing it when you are in the middle of the manoeuvre because you’ll likely be blocking the road, and if you delay other road users unnecessarily then that can lead to faults being recorded. Adjust the mirror before you begin (but if you forget, adjust them quickly and continue).
Is it important to stop the same distance away from the kerb each time?
Yes. If you go too far back you’ll hit the kerb as you turn in, and if you don’t go far enough then you’ll finish wide once you’re straight. If your kerb distance varies, the result of the manoeuvre will vary.
Can I adjust my final position?
Yes – but only do it if you really need to. If you follow the method closely, you won’t need to adjust your position at all. Use your lessons to understand what is acceptable and what isn’t. You’re allowed to be surprisingly far back – at least one whole length of your vehicle – before it becomes too far back. If you’re less than that, don’t fiddle.
The same applies with how far from the kerb you are. If you finish brushing the kerb, you can’t fix that – you’ve already brushed it – but it will only be marked as a driver fault at worst. Just leave it be. You can be up to around 30cm (1 foot) away from the kerb – learn what that looks like in the mirror and don’t fiddle unless you have to.
What if I hit the kerb on my test?
Touching the kerb during this manoeuvre is not usually a serious fault. At worst, it is a driver fault (and it might not be marked at all if you quickly and safely correct it). Hitting the kerb hard and fast is likely to be a serious fault, and mounting the pavement almost certainly will be. Also be aware of any lamp posts or other street furniture – if you get too close to those, touching the kerb might be considered more of an issue by the examiner.
If you’ve followed the method reasonably well, you will touch the kerb when you are almost straight. If this happens, you will have enough room in front to get full lock on, move forward slightly until you are straight, then straighten up and reverse back by an equally slight amount to complete the manoeuvre. Don’t move too close to the target vehicle when you do this – that can be marked as a serious fault.
If you are still at a pronounced angle when you touch the kerb, then you have messed up the method at Stage 3 or 4, and won’t have enough space in front to make the slight adjustment mentioned above. The best option is to go back to your angle by driving forward and try that stage again.
Although you’re not supposed to do it, you might consider starting the whole manoeuvre again. I’ve known people do that and get away with it, but I know others who didn’t. It’s your decision.
Remember that with any adjustments, you will also need to add safety checks and observations. This often catches people out as they start to panic.
Is it OK to dry steer?
Yes.
Do I need to reverse back any further once I’m next to, and parallel with, the kerb?
No. The whole point of the manoeuvre is to complete it within two of your own car lengths from the back of the target vehicle (i.e in the smallest space possible). Once you’re in, reversing back any further is pointless and could mean that you end up too far back.
If I’m too far back, can I drive forwards to correct it?
Remember that in the real world there will be another car behind you. You’re only as good as the furthest distance back you travel. The examiner will be assessing you on that farthest position, not the closest. If you can follow this method consistently you won’t be too far back and there will be nothing to correct.
If you feel you need to do it, just keep your fingers crossed at the end of your test.
You haven’t mentioned observations
You need to be aware of other road users, just like with all the other manoeuvres, and the examiner will be watching to make sure you’re looking for them. As a rough guide, look all around before each stage of the procedure at the very least, and check as necessary while you are moving. This is especially important if you end up trying to adjust your position, because you probably won’t have been taught any specific procedure for it, and you might forget to check for other vehicles and pedestrians if you are panicking.
Don’t precise angles and distances make this method too complicated?
As I said previously, other methods are extremely unreliable since they often rely on judgement, and you only get one chance to get it right on your driving test. The more precise you are with your method, the more reproducible it will be.
When you strip away the details, everyone parallel parks in the same way – a backwards ‘S’ (in the UK) into a gap. My method just makes sure the ‘S’ is the same size and shape each time for those who are doing this at the start of their driving lifetimes. The actual numbers don’t matter too much, but being consistent with positions and general angles does.
Will I fail my test if I can’t parallel park?
Yes – if the examiner asks you to do it, and you can’t. The same applies to all the manoeuvres you might be asked to do.
What about doing it on the right-hand side of the road?
I’m getting increased hits from readers in the USA. Quite simply, the method still works. You just have to get to a consistent angle (45° is ideal) to your left, and figure out what to look for when you’re the right distance away from the kerb (using your right mirror). Once you have a reliable angle and reliable distance from the kerb, you’re there.
Doing it on the right is easier in the UK, since the driver sits on the right side of the car, and so can see the kerb without using the mirror in most cases.
Remember that if you vary your angle, or vary your distance away from the kerb, the end result changes. For example, if you go much beyond 45° then you’ll need to stop further away from the kerb.
I get a lot of hits from people asking about parallel parking, so I’m going to write a How To… article on the subject to go along with the others. This article isn’t it – it’s just a bit of a discussion.
In my own experience, I’ve found that the manoeuvre pupils seem to have the most trouble with is reversing around a corner. I suspect that this is down to the fact that, unlike the others, you have to remain in control with precise adjustments throughout. However, before they’ve actually had a go, most pupils will identify parking – parallel parking, in particular – as the “most difficult”. I love to watch the look on their faces the first time I tell them that’s what we’re going to do today, but the look once they see how easy it is even better.
Parallel parking amounts to the same thing whatever method you use – the driver has to reverse into a space following a sort of backwards “S” shaped path. Any subsequent farting about comes as a result of not following that path properly, and that’s usually because the method they used isn’t very good.
Here’s a true story. Earlier this year one of my serial failers got the parallel park manoeuvre on three of her four tests (including the one she eventually passed on). It was the source of a serious fault on two of them, and the reason for that was that she had absolutely insisted on using the method her previous instructor had taught her, even though it only worked about 50% of the time. Her method involved estimating the position of the kerb (which could easily vary by ½ a metre or more), and some other nonsense about putting on one turn of the wheel, “lining up with the rear lights” on the target car, and then turning one turn the other way (this went tits up on one test because the target car was facing the other way and she couldn’t see its lights). After her last fail – amidst the tears – I put my foot down and told her she was learning MY method or nothing. As I say, she got the same manoeuvre the next time, and passed.
Whenever I pick up a new pupil who has covered the parallel park elsewhere I give them a chance to show me how they do it. If they can remember how to do it at all – and many can’t – they usually end up either too far back or too far away from the kerb. Having said that, if any of them can achieve a satisfactory result using their own method, I’ll let them carry on using it – but I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that’s happened. As long as I live, I will never understand why someone would teach pupils to reverse beyond the end of the target car, but only to apply partial lock (it’s usually “one turn”) and expect to finish within the requisite two car lengths. I’ll also never understand why someone would teach a method to a beginner which depends on how well the target car is parked, and which involves guessing where the kerb is. And don’t get me started on the problems that arise when the target vehicle is a lorry or stretch limo – try lining up diagonally with the lights and see how good the method is then!
You see, the problem stems from the fact that people who have been driving for years – and this includes a lot of instructors – have something that learners don’t. It’s called “experience”. Experience means many things, but one aspect of it is that “guessing” where the kerb is becomes slightly easier for more experienced drivers, whereas a beginner won’t have a clue – and nor will many of them be likely to acquire one by taking a couple of hours of driving lessons a week. However, let’s not deceive ourselves here. I said slightly easier, and if watching “experienced” people trying to park outside the local shops is anything to go by, this just means that there’s a marginally reduced risk of them flattening a passer-by or altering their bumper trim against street furniture. It certainly doesn’t make them parking experts.
Something else to consider is that an “experienced” driver can arse about for as long as they want until they eventually manage to park, or their conscience kicks in and they drive off to find somewhere else. It doesn’t matter if they hit the kerb or finish on it, take up two spaces, or end up diagonally with their back end sticking a metre into the road (well, not unless the council’s traffic Gestapo have been told to crack down on it at the time). In most cases, they will have the social conscience of a dog on a croquet lawn, and they won’t give a toss about how much inconvenience they are causing for everyone else (that’s another aspect of “experience”). A learner, on the other hand, is typically 17 years old, shy, nervous, has an examiner sitting next to them, and has basically got one shot at doing it perfectly in order to gain the shiny new driving licence on which their future depends. The two situations are not even in the same ball park.
For this reason, a learner needs a method that is as fool proof as possible, and not some Zen-like nonsense that fails as often as it succeeds.
The driving test is only the first step in learning to drive. Passing it means you are deemed safe to go out and gain more experience by practicing and consolidating what you learnt on your lessons. The first time you go out on your own it will be a new experience, but the second time it won’t be. The more you go out, the more confident you will become. Exactly the same thing applies to something like parallel park, where the first time you try it for real you’ll be nervous, but you will learn from it and begin to develop your own system. That’s how it has always been.
