ADI - Diary Of An ADI

Nottingham’s 20mph Speed Limits

07/04/2015

I’ve mentioned before that Nottingham City Council (NCC) seems to be out to ruin this city. Nottingham is filthy. There is litter everywhere, the roads are full of potholes, and white lines are barely visible on most of them. Designs for new office buildings only seem to be acceptable if they’re submitted in wax crayon by local children, and no new building is permitted to bear even the slightest resemblance to any previously approved design, even if the two are going to be adjacent (or even connected) to one another. Symmetry is out, and the non-glass parts are painted in light colours which look dirty after the first storm (magnolia seems to be the favourite choice), and which start to peel after a year or so. Many have gaudy plastic facades designed to fade dramatically on first exposure to sunlight or pigeon shit. The preferred asymmetry provides ample nesting space for pigeons, who move in before the tenants do. Buildings are only let to companies which allow their employees to stick crap all over the windows on the inside. And at least 80% of any new builds must be student accommodation.

But this still isn’t enough for them.

A while back I wrote about the NCC’s proposals for a “blanket” 20mph speed limit on urban roads. I made the point that 20mph is far too slow in most places.

In the absence of any clear reason for introducing them so widely, NCC came up with the following idiotic list:

streets more cycle and pedestrian friendly
greater community ownership of streets and parks
improved air quality
safer road junctions
reduced traffic noise
minimal effect on journey times
potential reduction in number and severity of accidents

As you can see, in NCC’s eyes 20mph limits are pretty much able to turn base metals into gold. In reality, these reasons range from the stupid (i.e. “community ownership”) to the downright wrong (driving at 20mph instead of 30mph may result in 8% fewer emissions, but the car is present for 30% more time; and journey times take 30% longer). However, at the time it was merely “a proposal” – which is council prat-speak for something which has already been decided, and it was only after they realised that they’d better do it properly that “a formal consultation” was arranged. I duly completed this and sent it back.

Before I continue, let’s understand that 20mph speed limits directly outside schools make perfect sense. But virtually anywhere else – and I include many roads quite near schools, and certainly sixth form colleges (where the attendees are technically adults) and shopping areas – they are completely unnecessary. They’re yet another manifestation of the nanny-state mentality of the very naive people who worm their way into politics and highly-paid council jobs.

What I didn’t realise when I completed the consultation was that identical ones tailored by area were being conducted in many other locations. More on that later.

Now, no one in their right mind – and especially if they drive a car – would ever agree to a blanket 20mph speed limit on roads. On the other hand, the kind of people whose brains turned to mush the instant they became parents, those who don’t (or can’t) drive, and certain people with a spandex fetish who favour two wheels would quite probably agree to it without question. It would not surprise me in the least to discover that the council deliberately targeted these groups when it sent out its consultations, but even if it didn’t I would be extremely dubious about the council’s claims concerning the response. As I say, they had already decided to introduce 20mph speed limits, and even if 100% of respondents were against the idea it wouldn’t have changed things.

Bearing this in mind, here is the council response sent out a few weeks ago announcing the “result”:

Dear Sir / Madam,

Having provided feedback as part of the formal consultation process previously I am now writing to inform you of the decision made by the Portfolio Holder of Planning and Transportation regarding the 20mph speed limit proposals for the [named] area.

The consultation period for these proposals ran from the 1^st November 2013 and concluded on the 22^nd November 2013 and the advertisement ran from the 15^th October 2014 to the 12^th November 2014. All comments and objections received during this time were forwarded to the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transportation to enable a final decision to be made on the future of the scheme. All of this information has now been considered by Councillor Urquhart and on balance it was decided that the scheme be approved and implemented accordingly.

All A and B roads in the area will remain at their existing speed limits. This includes the [named road], [named road], [named road] and [named road]. Please see the enclosed plan which shows these roads highlighted in black. Furthermore all private roads will retain their existing limits. Please be assured that we will continue to monitor accidents on all roads within the area and consider additional road safety measures where appropriate.

All remaining roads on the attached plan will be included in the 20mph speed limit.

Yours sincerely,

The Road Safety Team

Just to clarify: the “Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transportation” is Jane Urquhart. I’ve mentioned her before, and I will mention her again when I get on to the subject of the tram and other road works in subsequent articles.

The idiots had already started introducing 20mph speed limits before the consultation was even initiated, and I am certain that it was negative public reaction to these suddenly springing up which made them decide that they’d better “consult” over it. They started putting in those traffic monitoring devices on all the roads where they planned to cut the limits. The supposed purpose of this was to try and fit real data into the RoSPA guidelines for where 20mph limits are recommended, one of which is that roads should already have average speeds below a certain level. The irony here was that the council’s complete and utter incompetence over the tram extension and “ring road improvements” had already caused virtual gridlock throughout the city, and any average speed measured now was completely non-representative of normal traffic flows. Many of the roads being monitored were at a standstill for large parts of the day during the monitoring period, whereas previously they had been free-flowing. In summary:

the council was going to introduce a blanket 20mph limit anyway
following criticism, it set out to retrospectively obtain data to support that decision
the data were flawed since they did not represent normal traffic flows
the council made the the decision that it was going to make in the first place

I was only aware of the changes in my area, and I hadn’t allowed for the size of the “blanket” the imbeciles were planning to throw over the city. Having ignored (I am sure) true public response, as of March 2015 it is impossible to drive for more than a few minutes without encountering a 20mph zone. And this is where the unforeseen problems arise.

First of all, drivers only discover that a road in any area outside the one they were “consulted” about has a 20mph limit imposed by driving on it – and only then if they notice the signs. For someone like me, who (and I don’t mean this to sound big-headed) is an experienced professional driver, it comes as a bloody great surprise to turn into a road I have driven hundreds of times before only to discover it is now 20mph, and I will not disguise the fact that I have been caught out several times – including on lessons – where roads that were 30mph in the morning (and had been for the last 30 years) were suddenly 20mph in the afternoon. God only knows how other drivers will handle it (and judging by how many of them overtake me and my pupils every day, we have a good idea on what the answer to that one might be).

Secondly, their stupid “blanket” has a lot of holes in it. If you take North Gate/Haydn Road in Basford/Carrington/Sherwood as an example (a single straight road about a mile long), you encounter a 20mph sign as you turn in, a 30mph sign at the first junction, a 20mph sign a few hundred metres after the second junction, and a 30mph sign at the end. If you turn off into any side street while you’re on the 30mph stretch then you encounter a 20mph sign. A more complex route on several roads – turning left, right, left, right, and so on – can easily present a speed limit change at virtually every turn. It is dangerous beyond belief.

Then there is the appalling inconsistency of the signage. NCC – being peopled by idiots similar to those I used to work for – appears to have separate highways departments for putting up the big signs (at the start of a zone), putting up the posts they’re fitted to, putting up the small repeater signs (which appear throughout the zone), and for removing the old ones. In almost every case they erected the repeater signs before the main ones, and they didn’t take the old ones down immediately. On The Wells Road, for example, the old 30mph sign just after Ransom Road remained for several weeks after all the others had been put up (and it might still be there, as I haven’t been that way for a while). Similarly, on many roads it was weeks before the main signs went up after the repeaters had. There was absolutely no coordination and no haste. The Wells Road example (and it wasn’t the only one I encountered) caused massive confusion for my pupils on several lessons until I realised what they had done.

The “blanket” – however many holes it has in it – is huge, and the number of new signs required must run into the thousands. Apart from the cost, and the already mentioned confusion for drivers at the myriad changes on a once simple journey, the chances of there being a signage error are now that much greater.

To the best of my knowledge, the police have said that they will not enforce these limits. They hardly have enough personnel to enforce the existing ones, so covering these 20mph ones is pretty much a non-starter. But if they did, the danger created by having drivers forever on guard for the next change would be enormous.

The icing on the cake is that, certainly at the present, the “blanket” policy only applies to the city area – the boroughs haven’t applied it. Now, don’t think that “city” means a small circle in the middle and “borough” means a bigger one outside. Nottingham’s boundaries are far from symmetrical, and Clifton – which is about 5 miles from the centre – falls within the city limits, whereas West Bridgford – half the distance away from the centre – is part of a borough. Furthermore, unless you have a suitable map, you would never know where one boundary ends and another begins, as they are political and not geographical. None of West Bridgford’s side streets are marked as 20mph, but virtually all the city ones (and many of the larger roads) are. This detail means that the chance of meeting multiple or confusing speed limits on a short journey is higher still.

Then we come back to the matter of 20mph as a speed in its own right. It is too slow. It is not easy to adhere to it in the first place on a wide and clear road – even if you’re trying – and especially not over extended distances. If you drop below it by a couple of mph, half of the drivers in the city are trying to get past or sounding their horns at you (and although they are still in the wrong, you can understand their frustration). If the police ever did enforce it, they would catch a lot of people who weren’t actually “speeders”, but who were still technically speeding. Assuming that the they followed the ACPO guidelines of 10% + 2mph, a speed of 24mph would get you a ticket, but from what I can gather Nottinghamshire police do not use the ACPO guidelines. That means even 22mph could get you a ticket, points, and perhaps a ban if you’re a new driver who has already got one violation against your name. I have no doubt that at some stage we will see the tap on this particular cash cow turned on, especially since very few people appear to be making even the slightest attempt to stick to 20mph in these areas. NCC will be anxious to avoid having to do a u-turn over its policy, so enforcement is the next logical step for them.

Proposed Changes to Driving Test

16/03/2015

DOAADI

ADI, DVSA, News, Training

I saw this news clip on the BBC a couple of days ago. In one way, it’s old news (if you’re an instructor who reads the relevant channels). since DVSA announced its plans well over a month ago, and is due to commence trials very soon. It was also covered in various newspapers during February. The story concerns proposals to alter the content of the driving test.

Judging from the BBC news item, you’d be forgiven for thinking it was all about cyclists yet again. The item features a woman who lost her husband (a cyclist) when he was hit by a (female) motorist who was farting about with a satnav and didn’t see him. In typical, saccharin-sweet, knee-jerk manner, this now means that the driving test should change solely to teach people about satnavs.

For f***s sake, satnavs come with an instruction manual. Even if people bothered to read it – or look at the pictures if they’re especially stupid – they are unlikely to follow any rule if it suits them not to. For example, every satnav manual in existence says – in words or in pictures – that you shouldn’t attach it directly in your field of view. Of course, that’s precisely where the vast majority of people put the damned things, where they could easily obscure the driver’s view of pedestrians, cyclists, and even other vehicles. They do it because they’re idiots – you know the ones: they have the satnav running when they go to the shops or travel to and from work – and no amount of “training” would ever make them do it any other way.

Every satnav manual also says not to use it while you are moving. Some units (and I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this applied to all of them) even nag you about it every time you turn them on – on my Ford, I don’t think you can’t turn the visual nag off, and you just have to press OK each time you start it for the first time after each engine start. And yet almost every driver in existence attempts to programme them or play around with the settings while they’re moving. Again, no amount of “lessons” now will ever change that – if they want to fiddle with it while they’re driving, then they will, and no one is going to persuade them otherwise.

It’s the same with mobile phones. Every jackass 17-year old (and anyone else, come to that) knows full well they shouldn’t use them while they’re driving. But of course, that rule only applies to everyone else, and not to them.

To be honest, I’m sick and tired of cyclists being held up as sentimental shields to try and prove points against motorists. The vast majority of cyclists are far less well-behaved on the roads than the vast majority of drivers. The majority disobey almost every Highway Code rule going at one time or another (not giving signals, riding on pavements, riding across pedestrian crossings which aren’t designated for cycles, red lights, and so on). The fact that they also ignore cycle routes and deliberately mix it with traffic might well appear to be a brilliantly militant way of proving their entitlement to use the roads, but it’s bloody stupid if they end up dead as a result of being right.

If these bleeding hearts are going to keep going on about petty issues like using satnavs, maybe they need to look elsewhere for the cure. Because another thing that makes my blood boil is the number of times I see mummies and daddies stopping on yellow zigzags in the morning to let their own brats out, obviously believing the rules about stopping on those only apply to others. And those idiots in spandex who shun cycle paths to deliberately get in the way of busy traffic on national speed limit roads. Or those who ride in huge groups on narrow country lanes.

Most of those people are parents, and their arrogant and ignorant attitudes are the real reasons why idiot 17-year olds use satnavs and mobile phones while they’re driving. Pity the kids being brought up by people who behave like this. It’s inevitable that if they are being taught adult skills by a bunch of retards who think it’s fun to get in the way of lorries and cars traveling at 60 or 70mph just to prove a point (or stop where it is illegal to stop, or cross where it is illegal to cross, and so on), is it any wonder they run the risk of killing someone when they become responsible for themselves? Poor parenting is the problem, and that’s where any training ought to be taking place.

As things stand, a 40 minute test involving 10 minutes of using a satnav – one of the changes being trialled – will have as much effect on the attitude of the average 17-year old as a drop of water does on the level of the Pacific Ocean. Much bigger changes are needed.

To Signal, Or Not To Signal

12/02/2015

DOAADI

ADI, General, Training

This article was originally published in 2015 after I saw an argument on a driving forum. I noticed a similar argument more recently, so I thought I’d update it.

The general rule is that you should signal whenever it would help another road user, including cyclists and pedestrians, to understand your intentions. However, some instructors seem to be hung up on trying to find reasons not to indicate just to show how clever they are, and they lose sight of everything else.

Using a simple example. When you are moving off from the side of the road or pulling over you should check your mirrors/blind spots and decide if a signal is needed. Although a PDI who was doing their Part 2 test would probably pick up a fault if they signalled when no one was there, learners on their driving tests almost certainly wouldn’t as long as they had checked their mirrors first. At the other extreme, not signalling to move off/pull over when someone is behind you is almost a guaranteed serious or dangerous fault.

Unfortunately, many ADIs have great difficulty dealing with things which aren’t black or white, and so create silly all-encompassing “rules” to teach to their pupils. As a result, some advise their learners to always signal whenever they move off or pull up, which is completely wrong. Examiners will usually let it go if the correct observations have been made, and no one else was affected. But in many instances, the observations have been half-hearted, and the pupil hasn’t seen that someone is approaching.

When it comes to turning left or right at junctions, though, this is where the confusion really takes hold. Neither The Essential Skills (TES, for normal drivers, available from Amazon, above) nor Roadcraft (which was written specifically for police drivers, also available from Amazon, above) state explicitly that you must signal for every junction, but neither do they state explicitly that you might not need to. Consequently, ADIs attempt to apply the guidance given for moving off/pulling over directly to turning at junctions. The result is that they end up teaching incorrect or inappropriate things. Let’s consider some examples to try and understand what should be taught.

To start with, learners should be taught to use the MSM routine (from TES) and not the IPSGA routine (Roadcraft).

MSM is specifically mentioned in the Highway Code several times, and it stands for “mirrors-signal-manoeuvre” (acronym collectors will also use MSPSL (mirrors-signal-position-speed-look), MSPSGL (mirrors-signal-position-speed-gear-look), MSPSLADA (mirrors-signal-position-speed-look-assess-decide-act), or any number of similar variants). The basic application of this is that on approaching a junction the driver should check their mirrors (M) and signal (S) in good time (though not too early), adjust their position (P) and speed (S) – which usually involves dropping into a lower gear (G) – look (L) at the junction as they get closer, assess the situation (A), make a decision about how to proceed (D), then act confidently (A) and complete the manoeuvre.

The vital detail here is that the signal stage is initiated long before the point at which the driver could be certain that there was no one around to benefit from it. By definition, and except in the most theoretical of situations which are unlikely to prevail in the real world, you would only know that the signal was unnecessary way after the point at which you should have signalled for you to be applying MSM properly. Any learner who delayed applying their signal for that long – and particularly if it then turned out that one was needed after all – would definitely be chasing down a test fail.

Now, if you had an unlikely junction which was in the middle of a vast, flat expanse of closely-cropped grassland, where you could see for many hundreds of metres in all directions as you approached it, and you could therefore be completely and utterly certain that you were the only road user around, then there would be absolutely no point in giving a signal to turn left or right. The problem is that 99.9999% of junctions are not like that (especially when they’re on test routes), so there is little point droning on and on about the one dreamt of last night).

The argument I was following when I first wrote this article next raised the question of how close another driver has to be to you before they enter the zone where you and your actions are likely to interfere with theirs, thus changing a “no signal” situation into a “signal” one. It is a needless complication for normal drivers. If someone is there, just check your mirrors and signal.

I’ve lost count of the times one of my pupils has approached a junction or roundabout, seen that it is apparently clear while they’re a few car lengths short of the line, gone for the emerge – only for me to have to use the dual controls because someone else has suddenly turned up. They have made their decision too early, and exactly the same thing can happen if you’re farting about trying not to signal when just signalling in the first place isn’t actually wrong.

While we’re on the subject, I’ve also lost count of the times a pupil of mine has emerged somewhere without checking properly (and I have, and seen that it is safe, which is why I’ve let them do it), and when I’ve pulled them over to discuss it they’ve said:

But there was no one else there!

This immediately earns the lecture about how they couldn’t possibly know that if they hadn’t looked properly, and especially if they couldn’t actually see – which in most cases they couldn’t at the point where they made their decision to go. The lecture works even better if they do it and there is someone coming, because then I can give my supplementary “I told you so” lecture, as well. It often helps to drive them slowly through the junction again with me doing the controls so that they can see how far away they were from being able to see clearly, and how close to the give way line they really needed to be before making a decision.

The whole debate about not signalling at junctions for learners is stupid, pointless, and dangerous.

What is MSM?

It stands for “mirrors-signal-manoeuvre”, and it is the procedure you should use whenever you are driving and want to change course or direction. You don’t just use it for turning corners.

Some people refer to it by other acronyms – MSPSL, MSPSLADA, MSPSGL, and so on (as I explained above). But it is the same procedure they are talking about. Note that MSM is not the same as IPSGA, which is the system mentioned in Roadcraft. Roadcraft is the police drivers handbook and it is absolutely not intended to be the primary source of training material for normal drivers. Unfortunately, many ADIs have ideas well above their station and are incapable of understanding this, and try to teach too many Roadcraft-only principles to people who can’t even steer yet.

MSM is only a guiding principle. You often need to supplement the first M with blind spot and/or shoulder checks, and in the case of the S a signal may or may not be required depending on the circumstances.

Should I always signal when I am moving off?

Technically, no. You should check all around and only signal if there is someone there to benefit from it. People who might benefit include pedestrians and cyclists as well as other drivers. However, as long as you have checked you are unlikely to be penalised on your test for signalling to move away if there is no one there. Personally, I teach my own pupils the correct way from the outset, but as long as they have checked that it’s safe, and as long as they signal just before they move off (and not before they’re ready to go), I don’t worry about it too much.

When should I signal when I’m moving off?

When you are ready to move. Don’t signal before you have it in gear, and don’t signal before you have done your mirror and blind spot checks.

As a rough rule of thumb, if someone is coming up reasonably close behind you, you are not going to move off, and a signal would potentially cause confusion. A signal for moving off is most frequently for the benefit of oncoming vehicles, pedestrians, and parked vehicles which have (or might have) people inside. If you signal every time you move off, you’ll probably not get marked for it as long as your safety checks have been done and you don’t pull out in front of someone. Technically, though, you shouldn’t signal if there’s no one around who will benefit from it.

What if there is heavy traffic?

Usually, a signal is used to inform others of your intentions. It doesn’t give you any guaranteed right of way, and moving off is your decision based on your own safety checks. However, in very heavy and slow-moving traffic you can use a signal as a request to be let out – and I emphasise it is a “request” and not an excuse to just pull out. Wait until someone slows down to let you out, and if they flash their lights at you make damned sure they’re flashing at you, and not someone else waiting to move off or emerge from a side road.

Should I always signal when I am pulling up?

Same as I explained above. Technically, no. But be careful if you decide to do it anyway, because there is the risk of signalling too early and so being marked for a poorly timed signal (i.e. if there is a junction on your left) which isn’t an issue when you’re moving off.

Does it matter if I just signal to pull up anyway?

You will almost certainly get away with it if you do it on your test, as long as you check your mirrors first as part of the MSM routine.

How do I tell if someone will benefit or not?

This is why the whole issue is not as black or white as some would like it to be. For example, if there is a car parked in front of you as you move to pull up alongside the kerb, and there is someone in it, your signal would benefit them by informing them of your intentions. But can you be certain there is someone actually in the car? Sometimes you can see them, but other times – and particularly when there is poor lighting – you can’t be sure. So if in any doubt, just use a signal.

What does “signal if it will benefit others” mean?

One example. You’re parked at the side of the road and want to drive away. You’re in gear, gas and bite set, hand on your handbrake. What now?

If the road is completely empty it’s OK to release the handbrake and go. There is no need at all to indicate, because there is no one around who will see it – as in ‘benefit’ from it. However, if you do choose to use your indicator, it doesn’t matter – so long as you have checked.

Same situation, but someone is coming towards you the opposite way. This time, a signal tells them you’ll be moving away.

Same situation, but someone is approaching from behind. If they are close enough, let them pass and keep your indicator off. If there’s time to move off, signal and do it. Now they know you’re pulling out.

Same situation, but there is a parked car near you with someone in it. A signal lets them know you’re moving away in caser they were also thinking of pulling out. The same would apply if you weren’t sure if there was someone in the parked car.

Same situation, but there are pedestrians walking along the pavement. A signal tells them you’re moving away in case they were thinking of walking in front of you.

Basically, as long as you have checked, it doesn’t matter if you signal whether there’s anyone there or not. It’s just that if there isn’t, you don’t need to – but if there is, you should.

Should I signal if I’m in a lane which only goes one way?

Technically, there is no need to signal if the lane you’re in has a left- or right-only arrow painted on it. However, sometimes people use these lanes incorrectly and giving a signal might make sense (remember that when a signal is “of benefit to other road users”, it doesn’t just mean the good ones). As long as you don’t mislead or confuse anyone, you shouldn’t be penalised for indicating in these situations.

When should I give the signal?

It needs to be properly timed and not misleading. If you’re going to give a signal for moving off, do it just after you release the handbrake (just before is OK, but I prefer just after). Don’t start signalling before you’ve even got the car into gear – it drives me mad when my pupils do that. Leaving the indicator on for too long is confusing to other road users. Signalling should be the last thing you do before you move away after you’ve made sure it is safe enough to go.

When pulling up, don’t signal too soon such that people might think you are turning left, or that you are going to stop sooner than you are.

Will I fail if I always signal to move off or pull up?

No, not if you have checked to see if it is safe first. However, signalling unnecessarily when moving off or stopping is technically wrong, so try to do it properly instead of just trying to play safe. If you think about what you’re doing, it’s likely to be much more reliable than just doing the same thing each time without thinking.

Should I always signal when I am turning left or right at a junction?

You should be using the MSM routine, and this means that you should be signalling to turn left or right long before you find out if anyone was in the road you are turning into. So the answer is pretty much yes – unless you have one of those magical open junctions that everyone seems to think of when they start getting confused about signals, or if you want to play Russian Roulette with the examiner on your test.

But what if I can see that there is no one around to benefit?

Look, it’s up to you. If you are 100% certain – and I mean really 100% – that there is no possibility of someone turning up even when you’re back at the point where you should have begun your MSM routine, then there really is no need to signal. But what have you got to lose by signalling for a left or right turn anyway? Except in the Magical World of perfectly flat and featureless landscapes you are unlikely to be able to guarantee no one will turn up, and it won’t be marked if you do signal (even if it was it would only attract a driver (minor) fault). On the other hand, if you choose not to and the examiner disagrees that a signal was unnecessary you’re chasing down a serious fault. Don’t be a smart arse, and especially not on your driving test!

Should I signal to overtake a bus?

It depends. If it is clear ahead and you’re travelling at a normal speed, and if the bus has only just stopped, a signal probably isn’t needed. Anyone following can see what you’re going to do, and the bus driver is dealing with his pick up and wouldn’t benefit from your signal.

If the bus has been stopped for a while, there is an increasing likelihood that he will want to move off. A signal would inform the bus driver of your intentions, and if he is even partly a good driver he will wait until you’ve passed. Just allow for the fact that a lot of bus drivers aren’t even partly good drivers, and may well move off as you are passing, so be prepared to stay calm and get past promptly and safely.

If you’ve had to slow down or stop behind the bus to wait for oncoming traffic, and then intend to pass the bus when it becomes clear, a signal for traffic following you becomes important. It warns them that you are going to overtake, so they ought not to try to overtake you and the bus together. Allow for the fact that some drivers will still go for it – BMW and Audi drivers especially, because they have go-fast pratmobiles that can accelerate quickly.

If there are pedestrians or other road users around who look like they’re going to try and cross the road, a signal would benefit them, and that would apply even in that first example where the bus has only just stopped.

Essentially, if there is anyone who would benefit from a signal, then give one. But still be careful, because a signal doesn’t give you any special privileges.

Should I just signal anyway to be on the safe side?

It depends. If you mean just blindly signal so you don’t have to check the road properly, then it is just a cop-out, and one which could get you in serious trouble if you miss something important. On your driving test, examiners are quite relaxed about unnecessary signals, but they will nail you to the wall if you miss a mirror or blind spot check, or if your signal is confusing.

If you have checked, and still signal even if you really don’t need to, then that’s not so important unless it is confusing to other road users.

What if the test in question is my ADI Part 2 test?

Signalling unnecessarily can be marked as a fault on the Part 2 test. You certainly want to be doing it properly when moving off and pulling over, but trying to be clever at junctions by not signalling might backfire.

As far as turning left or right at junctions is concerned on your Part 2, if you have one of these magical open junctions on your test routes you need to get advice from your trainer and/or the examiner(s) who take ADI tests in your area to find out what is expected. The examiners would be more than happy to advise you.

Driving On The Left

14/01/2015

DOAADI

ADI, General

I noticed a this topic on a forum recently and thought it would be a good thing publish some sensible stuff about it.

No one is absolutely and definitely certain why the UK drives on the left and everyone else (about three quarters of the world) on the right. However, there are some very reasonable arguments about why this is (I got this from Tesco Bank). It’s worth noting that in order to understand these arguments, you have to consider an extended historical timeline. You can’t just take one piece of historical information and then poo-poo it in a modern context. Well, I say that – don’t forget that we’re talking about driving instructors here, and they can do things like that at the drop of a hat!

In the past, when swords were the weapon of choice, most people were right-handed. It was therefore common practice to walk on the left and pass other travellers sword arm to sword arm. Many years later, in the mid-18th century, the General Highways Act was introduced and this practice was carried over with the recommendation that traffic keep to the left. This was then further carried on into the Highways Bill in the early part of the 19th century.

In France, there was probably a similar approach to start with, but when Napoleon came to power, the fact that he was left-handed meant that he marched on the right. So France adopted this, and since both France and Britain were active colonisers any country they colonised was forced to adopt the respective system.

America was initially colonised by Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal. Britain was a minority player, and so using the left-hand side of the road was never adopted over there. As America grew, many other countries changed their system to match.

It would cost billions for the UK to change now.

Like it or not, swords are part of the reason why we drive on the left. There’s no single reason why the world does what it does, but an interconnected series of historical situations that stretch back to mediaeval times.

Chalfont Drive Test Centre Is Moving!

06/01/2015

DOAADI

ADI, Driving Tests, DSA

This is a really, really, REALLY old story from November 2012. This update is from late 2021, as a result of a run of hits on the article.

When Chalfont closed, tests were variously conducted over a couple of years from Colwick, Beeston (near the train station), Chilwell (from The Village Hotel), Clifton (on the Trent University campus), Clarendon Street (Trent University campus), and Watnall (the old LGV testing station).

As of 2021, test locations have been stable for several years and located at Colwick, Chilwell (Eldon Road, just behind the Village Hotel used before this facility opened), and Watnall.

This article (below) is now summarised from the original sequence of will-it-won’t it relocations in 2012 and 2013.

The DVSA had to vacate the Chalfont Drive location as the lease had run out (the entire site, which housed many government offices, is now deserted). They seemed to have left it a little late to start looking for a new location, and for a short time tests moved to Watnall and the DVLA local offices (which have now also closed).

DVSA announced that a new centre would open on the Beeston Business Park in the Rylands before the contract had been finalised. As a result, the whole deal almost fell through when the area was inundated with idiot ADIs conducting their lessons in the Rylands (in actual fact, no test routes cover the Rylands, and there is a notice up in the test centre waiting room informing instructors of this fact as a result of complaints by residents).

Anyway, to cut a long and very confusing story short, the Beeston Test Centre began operating in June 2013. And after the closure of the Clarendon Street trial, tests have once again started being conducted out of Watnall.

Using Another Vehicle As A Shield

04/01/2015

DOAADI

ADI, Training

I saw this topic on a forum recently. It concerns emerging – usually on to a roundabout – using a vehicle on your right as a “shield”. I’ve covered roundabouts in detail before, but this is a separate subject.

There is no official guidance that I am aware of which says you should or shouldn’t do it. I have to be honest and admit that I do it myself sometimes, but only if I am confident that I’m not taking too big a risk. Because it IS a risk, and doing it right depends heavily on how well you can control the car – being able to accelerate briskly, and to brake quickly and effectively if the situation changes – and on how well you can read other people. Most new drivers do not have those skills, and this should guide their decision about whether or not to do it.

So, what are the risks? Well, imagine that you’re sitting at the entrance to a roundabout in the left hand lane, and that there is a van to your right. The van is blocking your view of traffic coming from the right. Suddenly, the van moves off, and you follow suit. If everything goes to plan, you drive merrily on your way and everyone is happy. But consider the following possibilities:

The van driver made the wrong decision and a bus or lorry was coming from the right. The bus/lorry collides with the van and pushes it into you, or the van sees the bus/lorry and realises he’s made a mistake, then takes evasive action by turning into your path.
The van driver made the wrong decision because something was coming, and brakes sharply. You continue ahead and are suddenly exposed to whatever it is that made the van brake.
The van moves off, but something was coming. The van manages to get away, but you move off a fraction of a second later – perhaps jumping a little as you rush the manoeuvre, thus slowing you down a bit more – and are exposed to whatever the van was trying to beat.
The van moves off, but he was timing his move because there was something coming. You accelerate ahead and are exposed to whatever the van was waiting for.
The van stops. You also manage to stop, but the car behind you had tried to move off with you and doesn’t react in time. He drives straight into the back of you and pushes you further on to the roundabout.

The simple fact is that no matter how well it turns out, you were simply guessing that the road was clear, and in the case of using a van as your shield were relying on someone who almost by definition was not the best example to follow. The examples above CAN happen.

Now, if the vehicle you’re using as a shield is bigger – a bus or a lorry, for example – it is likely to move off more slowly, and that means you can do the same. If it stops, you’ll have more time to react. Generally speaking, buses are less likely to take risks compared with van drivers, and lorries are less likely to be pushed into your path if someone collides with them. But even so, this is a mercenary view of a situation which still boils down to you taking a gamble on something you can’t see.

You cannot be certain how quickly or slowly your shield is going to move. Some lorries (e.g. motorway maintenance ones or those that often carry earth or rubble for building sites) can move off very quickly, especially if they’re unladen. Some vans – in spite of always adopting the “fast” lane as their default – move away extremely slowly (usually the old smelly DAF vans, or old rust buckets). If you can read this it definitely helps you make your decision. Oh, and consider which route you intend to take – if you’re going straight ahead, using a shield makes a lot more sense than if you’re simply turning left. Using a shield for left turns is roughly equivalent to trying to do roundabouts wearing a blindfold!

I always teach my learners that if they can’t see, then they shouldn’t go. Early on in their training they can easily be led by what other drivers are doing, and I often have to warn them “don’t copy him – wait until you can see” as they start to move off whilst completely unsighted (and sometimes in the wrong gear). Later on, I explain that using a shield during normal driving is only even passably acceptable if you’re bloody sure about what you’re doing. Don’t copy cars (especially Audis and BMWs, which are faster than you, and are driven by bigger idiots), and be very careful with vans (the drivers of which probably own Audis or BMWs anyway). And yes, I use that sort of language to get the message across.

Driving In Snow And Ice

01/01/2015

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, Training

DVSA has been putting out reminders about the Highway Code and how it relates to driving in bad weather. Quite right, too.

Snow On The Roof

Anyone who drives their car with a thick cover of snow on the roof doesn’t deserve to hold a driving licence. Furthermore, if the idiot in question has kids with them then they are in need of an urgent visit from Social Services to discuss suitable foster homes for the protection of their offspring.

Look at the picture below, which shows how a covering of snow on the roof can suddenly slip and obscure the driver’s view (and this appears to be on a stationary vehicle).

It is not a rare occurrence – it happens more times than it doesn’t in this country, I can assure you. I witnessed it happen to several moving cars while out on lessons over the weekend, but the “best” one was on Sunday.

I’d just dropped a pupil off after a lesson, and on approaching the Crown Island to join the busy ring road I’d already had to negotiate a taxi which was stopped at a set of lights with its hazard lights on (I assume it had broken down, though with taxis it’s hard to tell, and having one of them stop in the middle of a box junction at a crossroads to pick up a fare isn’t as unlikely an event as you might think). Anyway, as I approached the island there was another major hold up. This time some prat had stopped in the right hand approach lane about two car lengths from the give way line. Why? Because he’d got a 3” deep slab of snow on the roof, had braked hard, and the snow had fallen down as a frozen sheet on to his windscreen. It was too heavy for the wipers to clear, so the dolt had had to get out and start shovelling by hand.

He was lucky he hadn’t driven into the back of someone. He was lucky no one had driven into the back of him. He was lucky his wipers hadn’t snapped or burnt out when he vainly tried to wipe the ice clear. And he was lucky he hadn’t discharged his battery. Mind you, come to think of it, any of those last three things could still have happened for all I knew after I’d got past him.

He should have cleared his roof before he left home, of course. But that would have meant dumping the nasty snow in his own driveway instead of on the approach to a roundabout where it could cause significant danger to other drivers. These prats who think it’s really clever to keep snow on the roof – either to amuse the kids, or themselves – inevitably lose it at some stage. Even if it doesn’t fall on to their windscreen it ends up all over the road when they brake sharply, which this kind of person is wont to do at every junction and roundabout. Eventually, there is just the right combination of melting underneath and freezing on top to send the sheet hilariously on to the road where a previously clear road now has an ice patch right where you least want one.

Steamed-up Windows

Then there’s the problem of steamed up car windows. I’m sick of being cut up by cars full of spotty-faced kids with windows completely steamed up. These people can’t drive very well at the best of times, so you’d imagine that they’d want to have a good all-round view, wouldn’t you? Apparently not, though, and they’d much rather just fling the car from lane to lane without having a clue who or what is behind them.

I took a young lad out on a Pass Plus session the other day. He wasn’t one of my own ex-pupils, and he had lots of questions. One of them was:

Is it normal for cars to steam up like this all the time?

We’d been driving for a few minutes and the side windows had started to mist up. I explained to him that yes, unfortunately it was normal. It happens because the cold air cannot hold the moisture that the passengers are giving off, so it condenses out on to cold surfaces. I then gave him my “show me, tell me” question talk, explaining that there are three main ways to clear mist off the windows:

The Heated Window button(s) – to demist the back, push the button that turns on the heated rear window. Some cars have a heated front windscreen, too, which has a similar effect at the front.
The Heater/Fan – by blowing a lot of warm air at the windscreen and side windows, the mist is evaporated.
The Air-conditioning – the aircon system dehumidifies the air, which completely prevents misting up to start with, and eliminates it quickly if it’s already happened. It uses a little more fuel at lower speeds – and I said “a little”.

He was amazed at how the aircon sorted out the problem within a minute. What’s more, after I switched it off the car remained mist-free for the whole 2 hour session. But I am fairly certain that a lot of drivers out there don’t even know about the heated rear window, let alone whether or not their car has a heated front window or air-conditioning.

Note that you can get demister sponges – made from chamois or faux-chamois wrapped around a foam pad – which work well up to a point. They’re ideal for cars which don’t have aircon. What puts me off them is that after you’ve used them a couple of times they pick up grease and leave smears on the glass.

Inappropriate Speed

On Monday this week I was sitting with a pupil outside his house at the start of a lesson. His roads were all covered in shiny sheet-ice as a result of compacted snow and no gritting, and since this was his first time in such conditions I was giving my snow/ice talk prior to going to look for places where we could skid safely. Three or four houses down the road was a t-junction and, as we watched, a Corsa driven by a woman (if she didn’t have kids in the car at the time, she certainly had all the things stuck on the back window that indicate she usually did) appeared. It slammed its brakes on, skidded across the entire road, and ended up almost touching the kerb opposite.

It took many wheel-spins for her to correct her position and carry on in the direction she intended. I asked my pupil what he though would have happened if someone had been travelling along the main road and had this happen in front of them, bearing in mind the conditions on the road? What would have happened to the kids in the back of either car?

Since Friday, when it snowed, I have lost count of the number of people who have overtaken me or a pupil in places where it was only by sheer luck that they didn’t skid or end up skidding as a result of having to brake hard. There is no way anyone can know what is ahead of them, and when your ability to stop is so severely compromised by ice it is sheer stupidity to drive like this. Even up until yesterday (the snow has all melted by this morning) many roundabouts and traffic light junctions were still restricted to one driveable lane because of snow cover, and yet far too many prats were using the snow cover as overtaking space. And yet, without fail we caught up with them at the next junction, so all they had achieved was to behave stupidly, dangerously, and illegally for absolutely no gain.

In this country snow-chains are pretty pointless, as they can only be used on contiguous snow cover without damaging the chains, your tyres, and the road surface. We rarely get those conditions in England or where roads are treated and maintained. Snow socks are an alternative worth considering. They fit easily, and can be used over patches of tarmac, though care is needed as your tyres effectively do not meet the minimum tread depth specification. However, they could get you up (or down) that last hill to your driveway.

Correct Preparation

Just prior to driving off.

Clear off all snow from the windows, roof, bonnet, lights, and mirrors
Use an ice scraper or a car squeegee to help dislodge and move large areas of snow
Use an ice scraper and/or de-icer to remove frost and ice from windows and mirrors
Use the car heater and heated window/mirror controls to help you dislodge ice on windows and mirrors
Use the air-conditioning, hot air blowers, and a suitable cloth/sponge if you like to de-mist the windows inside
Don’t forget that your rear view mirror will also steam up when it is cold, so give it a wipe
All you have to do is wait 2-3 minutes with the engine running and the heater blowing at the windscreen and the windows will demist – do it while you’re clearing snow or scraping ice

There are other car checks that you should carry out routinely anyway, especially if you’re going on a longer journey.

Check your tyre pressures
Check your screen wash fluid level and make sure you have some spare in the boot
Fill up with fuel before you leave town, and make sure you know where fuel stops are along the way
Make sure your screen wash fluid is the right concentration not to freeze
Carry de-icer, ice-scrapers, and clean rags for cleaning purposes

And a few other things that just make sense:

Make sure you have suitably warm clothing with you
Make sure you have your phone with you
Make sure you have money or a means to pay for things with you
Maybe a pair of snow socks just in case

Other advice you’ll see is to carry cat litter or sand to help you get out of ruts if you get stuck, a snow shovel to dig yourself out, and food to keep you going if you are stranded. Well, all that’s up to you – most people get stuck driving home from work or Tesco, and the chances of being marooned for several days until the rescue helicopter finds you are fairly remote. However, if you are planning to drive a long way you can consider these options.

Bottom Line

If you drive with snow on the roof (or anywhere else) or badly misted windows you don’t deserve to hold a driving licence! Don’t be a prat – just clean it off, turn up the damned heater, and find something else that amuses either you or the kids.

Union Flag Nonsense

31/12/2014

DOAADI

ADI, News

It seems that new driving licences will now include the Union Flag as well as the EU one. Transport Minister, Claire Perry, said:

People in this country rightly take pride in our national flag which is why I am delighted it will now be displayed on British driving licences.

Celebrating Britain strengthens our sense of national identity and our unity. I will feel proud to carry my new licence and I hope others will too.

Well, actually, no. The change is pointless, and it smacks of nationalism, which I detest. Hopefully, the idea will get reversed (or an opt-out introduced) some time in the next 10 years before my licence is due for renewal.

Unfortunately, I can see it appealing to quite few people and, therefore, gaining a few votes for the current Mickey Mouse government we have. Incidentally, no one has claimed anywhere that the change has anything to do with cutting bureaucracy or reducing costs. In fact, with 127,000,000 licences having been issued since 1998 even as little as a tenth of a penny on the cost of each licence would amount to over £100,000.

Driving School of Mum and Dad

31/12/2014

DOAADI

ADI, Driving Tests, News, Training

~~Surrey and Hampshire News~~ (an outfit that obviously can’t afford a real web server for its publication, because this story is no longer available after less than two weeks) reckons that only 1 in 3 learners are taking lessons with qualified instructors, opting instead to be taught by family members.

I’m not sure I trust their figures. If nothing else, they fail to follow up on all those who start out with the cheaper option, then end up failing their tests and have to go to a proper instructor for remedial training later. Perhaps the quoted figure by MoneySuperMarket – that is costs “a whopping” £1,128 to learn to drive with an ADI – reflects this?

You see, £1,128 would equate to around 50 hours of lessons (well, 45 hours, plus the theory test and practical test fees) using my hourly rates. During this last year I’ve had one pupil do it in 14½ hours, and many others manage well under 40 hours, and I can’t see how or why this should be much different elsewhere if the training is up to scratch. In fact, what I think we’re starting to see is the effect of cheap lessons – the story and MoneySuperMarket only seem concerned about that, anyway – and the resulting quality issues.

I lost count long ago of the number of people who had been “taught” by mum or dad, or by a cheaper instructor, but who subsequently realised they weren’t getting anywhere. The biggest problem in most cases was getting rid of their appallingly bad habits.

Lane Choice and Lane Discipline

26/12/2014

DOAADI

ADI, Training

I originally wrote about this back in 2011 as a result of people asking which lane they should choose at traffic lights and how they should merge back in later on. But there is a lot more to the topic than just traffic lights – it applies to junctions, roundabouts, and normal driving.

Not choosing the correct lane and not staying in lane is one of the most common causes of driving test failure. It is marked on the DL25 Driving Test Report under section 23, Positioning, and the ticks can go in either the normal driving or lane discipline boxes depending on what has happened. Furthermore, not staying in lane can lead to faults for observation and mirror checks. You just have to face the fact that poor lane discipline – whether through bad decisions or simply not realising you’re doing it – means that you’re unlikely to be checking what’s happening behind you. This is especially true at roundabouts and complex junctions with multiple lanes, where you will be concentrating on what’s in front.

The reasons why people abuse lanes are many and varied, and run all the way from deliberate arrogance through to blind panic as a result of not knowing the correct procedure to start with, There’s not much anyone can do to help you sort out your driving behaviour if you’re an evil little chav (or an Audi or taxi driver) who simply has to get in front of as many people as possible before cutting into a small space just before your turn. But if it is just a result of not understanding then there is a lot you can do to fix things.

Satellite Images – You can zoom into any roundabout or junction using Google Maps or Google Earth in the comfort of your own home. If you know what you are looking for (and at – many people are as bad at interpreting aerial maps as they are at choosing lanes), and can translate this into the ground level view, you can work out how lanes work at junctions and roundabouts. With Google Earth, roundabouts in many big cities can be “driven through” at ground level using your mouse scroll wheel.

Detailed Diagrams – Driving instructors often have access to roundabout diagrams, and these can be useful for explaining the basics. However, most diagrams are generic and don’t accurately represent actual layouts of many real world roundabouts. If you search hard enough, you might come across detailed blueprints taken from council highways department archives, and these can help if you are able to strip away the complexity.

Arrow Diagrams – Driving instructors ought to know how all the local roundabouts work in fine detail. One way they can help you understand the flow is by converting the aerial view into an arrow diagram. Take this example of a roundabout system close to the Colwick Test Centre in Nottingham. This is the satellite view taken from Google Earth.

Aerial view of Lady Bay and Colwick Roundabout

You can pick out the lane markings quite easily when you zoom in, but because of the overall scale you can’t get a single-page printout which shows all the detail.

Here’s the same roundabout system showing the route from Lady Bay Bridge at the lower left of the aerial image, along Meadow Lane, and either turning left towards the city centre or right towards Colwick (and the Test Centre).

Using lines to represent lanes and lane routes for the Lady Bay/Colwick Roundabout area

It’s not intended to be to scale. It is only intended to show lane layouts.

Lane Discipline

Using this diagram, if your intended route from Lady Bay Bridge was towards the city centre, your lane choice (i.e. “discipline”) should ideally be as shown by the green dots below. If you automatically followed the route shown by yellow dots without thinking then you would be exhibiting poor lane discipline.

Line diagram showing the lane options for the route to the City

There are several reasons why you might correctly choose the yellow route (e.g. heavy traffic in the left lane, or planning to turn right further on), but it is not the default choice.

Lane Discipline at Traffic Lights

At traffic lights you often find that the road splits into two lanes, then merges back into one just after. This happens where there is a junction, and it’s purpose is to prevent people being held up by those who are turning. It is effectively an overtaking lane meant to keep traffic flowing.

Under normal circumstances you should stay in the left hand lane. If you know what you are doing you can overtake in the right hand lane, but you must be able to confidently handle the merge back on the other side. For a learner on their driving test, that could be either a huge bag of brownie points if they get it right, or a serious fault (and fail) if they don’t.

Remember that at a crossroads, as well as people turning left there may be others turning right, so if you move into the right hand lane you could get stuck behind those waiting for a gap in the traffic. Annoyingly, many people wait right until they have stopped in the middle of the junction before signalling, so you have got to be careful. Never assume that the right hand lane is the “fast” lane. It usually isn’t – something the Audi drivers and boy racers never seem to learn, and if you have remained in the left hand lane be ready for these trying to cut back in again.

What is meant by “lane discipline”?

It means choosing the correct lane at the appropriate time and – to a certain extent – staying in that lane.

If road markings or road signs indicate which lanes to use to head off in certain directions and you wait until the last moment to change, then you are guilty of poor lane discipline. If you straddle lanes or wander out of your own lane then you are also guilty. You could also be marked for poor planning, normal driving position, observation/safety (if you don’t realise you’re doing it), response to traffic signs/markings, and so on.

Category - ADI