Well done to Michael, who passed first time today with just 3 driver faults. He was very nervous, even though he is a big guy, which just goes to show nerves can hit anyone. It’s just natural to be nervous, though, and he got through it with ease.
The important thing is that having a licence now opens up a lot of new avenues for his work prospects, and THAT is what makes this job really worthwhile. That, and having nice pupils to teach.
This email alert from the DVSA states that tests will cease to be conducted out of Clarendon Street as of 29 August 2014. However, Watnall will now re-commence conducting car tests as of 15 September 2014. The email says that tests will be available every day.
I didn’t do any tests out of Clarendon Street, but my understanding was that they only did them two days each week. I could be wrong, but that was certainly the original plan when the scheme was first trialled.
I think I’ll open betting on how long it takes for the Watnall residents to start complaining about all the learners who will undoubtedly be flocking back there! I’m sure there will be notices on the wall for ADIs to ignore asking them to avoid certain locations within a fortnight. Mind you, the only bad thing about Watnall for me is that there’s nowhere to get a decent coffee or something to eat. Oh, two things. The waiting room is uncomfortable, too!
Well done to Peter, who passed today with just four driver faults. A well-deserved result to a fellow Arsenal fan.
I usually marked his driver record using the “Spurs Index” – a number between 0 and 10 depending on what he did wrong, just to wind him up. The Index maxed out a few days ago when we were doing a bay park and he kept going too far and finishing just past straight. When I analysed it with him, he said “well, there is a reason but I didn’t really want to tell you because I know you’ll laugh”. I said: “Come on. You’re going to tell me now”.
It turned out he was trying to be better than perfect, which somehow meant going beyond straight to him. And he was right: I did laugh. But it meant that we got it sorted, even if it did gain a perfect “10” on the Spurs Index.
Well done to Rod, who passed on Tuesday with just 3 driver faults. Current plans are for both him and his brother to do Pass Plus when he gets back from his summer holiday – I’ll believe it when it happens, as everyone plans to do Pass Plus, but they seldom follow it through!
As I explained to him (in front of his dad) last week, he couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery. Rearranging lessons he hadn’t got booked, giving me the wrong time of his test (fortunately, too early instead of too late), and picking up habits off his mum (who appears to be related to Lewis Hamilton as far as advice on speed is concerned) in ten seconds flat whilst ignoring what I am teaching him for weeks at a time. All light-hearted, of course, as he has been a good pupil and we’ve successfully overcome his dyslexia.
Look! It’s from 2014. We’re not in 2014. It’s an old story.
An alert from the DVSA advises candidates who have tests booked on Thursday, 10 July 2014 to turn up as normal. The PCS union hasn’t had a strike for a while, so it’s making up for lost time with one now.
Remember that not all examiners are members of PCS, and not all those who are are stupid enough to get involved with strikes. Based on past experience, your test is most at risk if you live in a place where unions and strike action are still part of people’s normal lives (i.e. north of the Midlands).
Obviously, you could cancel your test right now and rearrange it for a different date. However, if your test IS cancelled then it will automatically be rearranged at no cost to you. Mind you, that won’t stop you losing time off work, nor will it enable you (or your instructor) to claim for the cost of the lost lesson/car hire – the DVSA seems to have sneaked that one in without much of a fanfare:
You can’t claim for:
- the cost of driving lessons or training courses that you took before your test appointment
In the past, I’ve never had a problem claiming my pre-test lesson fee back if the DSA (as it was) screwed up – it’s only happened a few times, in any case. This wording suggests I might now. So we’re all being potentially inconvenienced one way or another.
Thanks a lot, PCS, you fossils.
They put this out for consultation a few months ago. Amongst various things, they were asking for opinions about cutting the price of the Theory Test, which currently costs a mere £31 (well, a bit more if you’re stupid and pay for it via a scam site).
In my response, I made it clear that as far I was concerned the current price was fine as it was. Unfortunately, someone somewhere is after votes for next year’s General Election and dropping the price is the chestnut they were going to roast come hell or high water. The “consultation” was just a pointless exercise to show that they “listen” to the public.
As you can see in the DVSA email alert I linked to above:
The cost of the driving theory test will be cut by 25%, saving learner drivers over £100 million over the next 9 years.
Let’s just set the record straight here. That “£100 million over the next 9 years” is going to be split between around 13 million tests. It isn’t going to save ANY learner more than £8 for each time they attempt the test. That doesn’t look anywhere near as vote worthy, does it? A mere £8 versus £100 million. It’s also going to be phased, with £6 coming off this October, and another £2 next year.
And don’t even get me started on how it doesn’t save anyone anything if they never had to pay the higher fee in the first place. That’s like saying that when I go out and buy a pocket calculator for £5, I am saving over £80 because of how much they used to cost when they first came out. I’m not saving anything.
The real point is that the theory test lasts about 90 minutes, which breaks down to around £21 per hour. Allowing for building rent, systems maintenance, staff salaries (at least two staff), and so on, it is hard to see how the test can possibly be maintained for even £21 an hour, let alone £15 instead. I know enough about outsourcing to understand the true costs involved, and someone somewhere is ultimately losing money on this – or they will if the market shifts unpredictably in the medium term future.
Alastair Peoples can go on forever about having “secured” a lower price for the outsourcing contract (from which one must conclude that Pearson VUE has lost the contract, or else what the hell were they charging for up until now?) It is Stephen Hammond – LibCon Transport Minister – on a vote hunt which is at the root:
We want to keep costs down for all motorists – that’s why we have frozen fuel duty – and by reducing the cost of the theory test we will save aspiring motorists around £9 million annually.
As I say, it’s total bollocks. No one is saving “£9 million annually”. Each learner will save a mere £6 (going up to £8 in 18 months’ time) each time they take a test – and even then, if they turn 17 after the price falls, they have saved NOTHING. The only positive thing is that someone somewhere else is going to have to squander £9 million less than they have been doing previously.
Don’t worry – it’s not in the UK. The Bangkok Post reports that the new multiple choice test introduced a few days ago is showing a greater than 90% failure rate in the first set of results from Chiang Mai.
It seems that the new multiple choice test introduced last Sunday – which requires 45 correct answers out of 50 – is similar to the one we use in the UK. The recent change has increased the number of questions from 30, and set the pass rate at the higher level of 90%.
The department has enforced tougher measures to obtain driving licences after it found that many road accidents were caused by a lack of drivers’ ability.
I wonder if Thailand’s driving instructors are blaming the authorities yet? After all, that’s what many of them do over here when one of their little darlings fails the UK theory test.
Thailand is also piloting a system it calls “E-driving”.
Instead of having an examiner sitting in the car with them, test cars will be equipped with computers and cameras to monitor drivers.
“The E-driving system provides accurate and precise results and will do away with problems in the old system, which relies on a committee to assess results,” says Department chief Asdsathai Rattanadilok Na Phuket.
I’m not 100% sure what this chap is saying – is it the old method which requires a committee decision, or the E-driving one? Who will decide now? Just one person? But he adds:
It will also bring a drop in the number of applicants passing the test, from 70% to only 30%.
Interesting.
Well done to Fabienne, who passed today – at long last – with just 3 driver faults. She’s one of my (now ex-) serial failers, and this was her ninth test, albeit only her fourth with me.
She’s actually a very good driver, but on each previous test she did something different wrong and got a serious fault for it. Her nerves were terrible, and this had a lot to do with her record – on her last test, for example, she made the typical mistake of not maintaining lane discipline on a roundabout, and then not checking her mirror as she exited. And yet this never happened on lessons, before or after. She couldn’t even remember doing it.
Anyway, this was one of the satisfying ones because she was so happy. It meant so much too her, particularly as she is starting a new job and being able to drive will make a huge difference.
As of June 2019, this article has received a few hits. Please note that it is an old post and is not relevant any longer. DVSA allows recording of tests using dashcams now (but still not the audio). Indeed, I often use dashcam footage to show pupils where they went wrong. However, the original post is still of interest because of what was being advised at the time I wrote it. Namely, covert recording of tests at a time when DVSA (or DSA as it was) did not allow it.
Back in February I commented on a story that had come through on the newsfeeds concerning advice from PoliceWitness.com. The company sells in-car cameras, and in a story published in Fleet News, it was stated:
Learner drivers are being encouraged to film their driving tests, covertly if necessary, by PoliceWitness.com.
Earlier today, I received an email from PoliceWitness.com. The full text is as follows (with their permission):
Dear Sir,
I am writing with reference to your post on your website, diary of an adi: https://www.diaryofanadi.co.uk/?p=14855 which states that PoliceWitness.com has given irresponsible advice about filming driving tests.
I wanted to take the opportunity to clear up any confusion and thought it would be useful to update you on our recent correspondence with Alastair Peoples, the Chief Executive of the DVSA.
On your website you state “PoliceWitness is getting itself into a very muddy area, since unless an examiner gives permission such recording could be a breach of the Data Protection Act”.
When we contacted Alastair Peoples and asked about the DPA and filming of driving tests, his reply was “…You suggested that we have used the Data Protection Act as the reason why we do not allow the filming of driving tests. This is not the case. While it is true there are data protection issues associated with the recording of tests, the main reason we do not allow tests to be recorded is that a single video camera mounted in a test car could not provide an accurate record of everything that happened on test”.
We have had several subsequent letters from Mr Peoples who has recently advised, and I quote “As you may appreciate, there are many issues to take into account when considering the recording of driving tests. For many years, our position has been – aside from a few very exceptional circumstances – that we did not allow the recording of live tests. This policy developed largely from our concerns that the recording of tests from inside a vehicle could have been a breach of the Data Protection Act. We were also concerned that footage from a single, internally-mounted camera could not show a true representation of events both inside and outside the vehicle. There is also the possibility that a recording could be altered to show something different from what actually happened.
We are, however, aware that times change and cars that are fitted with cameras, telematics systems and other forms of recording devices for insurance purposes are becoming more common. It is difficult to foresee how we could exclude vehicles with these technologies from
testing, neither would we wish to do so. We are committed to working with stakeholders to design a modern and relevant driver training and testing regime that delivers safe and responsible drivers and riders. It is clear that the current position on the recording of driving tests needs to be reviewed and we are currently looking into that. During that review the safety of test candidates, examiners and other road users, and the integrity of the driving test must take priority. Once we have completed our review we will publicise the outcome through the usual communication channels”
As a driving instructor (are you based in Nottingham?) I thought you might be interested to hear about the driving test review that is underway and to hear how PoliceWitness.com is supporting many DI’s who have dash cams installed, not only to protect themselves on the road but to use them as a training tool for their pupils.
I hope you have found the update from Mr Peoples useful and would be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.
Kind regards,
Paul
Customer ServicesWith a proven track record of holding bad drivers to account, we have been instrumental in changing driving standards for the better.
Our most significant step forward of late has been to secure genuine insurance reductions for those using a dash cam.
Unlike many insurers that merely use ‘x% off’ as a marketing message, we’ve gone straight to an underwriter who already recognised and understood the benefits of a dash cam during a claim.
As such we guarantee to reduce our members insurance costs. Even beating the likes of Direct Line and Aviva. An announcement will follow.
In my response, I included an email I received from DSA (now, DVSA) in February this year, which I also include in full, below (I have underlined the significant portions):
Dear [DOAADI]
Thank you for your email of 3 February about using video equipment to record a practical driving test. I appreciate you bringing this matter to our attention. I have informed our relevant departments who will also investigate further if necessary.
We do not allow people to record driving tests as images and/or audio recorded consist of, in most cases, the personal data of the examiner. This means that the images or recordings are subject to the Data Protection Act (DPA).
The fact the act is employed means that the Approved Driving Instructor must ensure the processing of this personal data is ‘Fair’ and they satisfy certain conditions that allow processing in this way. They must take account of the privacy and wishes of the person whose being filmed, especially when an individual objects to filming. Based on this, we made the decision to prohibit the filming of tests, owing to the data protection issues involved.
It is within the examiner’s rights to stop a test if they become aware of someone filming the test without the agency’s permission. If it becomes apparent that filming equipment is active either in a test vehicle or externally, the examiner should politely ask for the equipment to be switched off. If this request is not complied with the test should be terminated.
If a test is terminated because of filming the candidate would lose their fee. If a test is filmed covertly and the examiner did not know, then all DPA laws would apply. Our position is still that we do not allow tests to be recorded because of the DPA protection implications. If a test is filmed we would not view the footage unless it is deemed to have involved criminal activity, in this instance we would send the film directly to the Police.
You can find further information here.
This is not to say that vehicles fitted with CCTV etc will be refused for test. However, the equipment must be turned off while the test occurs.
Yours sincerely
Customer Support Correspondence
Customer Operations
[old DSA email address no longer correct]
As you can see, there is a discrepancy here. Alastair Peoples says one thing, whereas the DSA part of the new DVSA says another. However, the fact remains that – at present – DVSA does not allow any form of recording to take place during tests, and I maintain that it is – at present – irresponsible to advise covert recording of driving tests.
There are a number of issues that Alastair Peoples does not seem to have considered in his comments to PoliceWitness.com. Concerning DPA, there is the fact that the majority of test candidates are under the age of 18 (and a large proportion of those are female). The Protection of Children Act (1978) was amended in 2003 to apply to anyone under the age of 18, and so the routine recording of 17-year olds will definitely raise questions – or, at the very least, put the person making such recordings in a very risky position – should the person being filmed raise any objections. I’m not saying it would definitely be in breach of the DPA and associated laws, but it is clearly sailing bloody close to the wind. Also, the inside of a tuition vehicle is not a “public place”, so as I said in that earlier article, it’s a very muddy area – and one that is best kept out of by instructors,
Furthermore – and irrespective of any possibility that recordings can be amended to show something different to what actually took place – in order for a bona fide recording to show all of the necessary information for an appeal over a test result, it would have to have been made from several simultaneous camera angles. To cover all possible situations, you would need forward- and rear-facing footage, footage from at least one camera either side of the car, and close-ups of both the examiner and the candidate. All of these channels (at least six) would have to be synchronised. Only then could you begin to address the usual “but I did check… oh no, you didn’t” claims when someone fails. And it would still need lengthy expert assessment to decipher what was going on. Mr Peoples doesn’t seem to have considered that – or how much it would cost DVSA to wade through the inevitable deluge of unfair claims that would ensue.
And yes, there is the risk of footage being edited to bolster any claim, though this is the least of any problems that might arise from allowing tests to be recorded.
You also have to remember that both VOSA and DSA have a long history of “looking into things” – and an equally long history of actually doing bugger all about any of them in the end. For Alastair Peoples to say something like this now – less than a year away from a General Election – is typical. It is likely we will have a new government this time next year, and in the meantime the existing one will be more concerned about not losing votes than it is about changing things which won’t win any. In any case, the uncertainties over the legal situation mean that changes to the Law are likely, and that means consultations. All of this is even less likely to happen inside any reasonable time frame.
I have no problem with PoliceWitness.com selling cameras for the purposes of combatting theft and fraud, but driving tests are not conducted fraudulently, give or take a few high-profile cases every few years. Advising covert recording of something which is already expressly forbidden is a bit of a contradiction in terms.
This article is getting a a fair few hits from Theory Test Pro, and an article of theirs which give 5 reasons why ADIs should use a dash cam. All of the reasons are sound – and not one of them involves recording driving tests.
As I have written before, I use a camera for training purposes – I’ve experimented with several – but recording tests is something I would never do, even if it was allowed. [EDIT 2019: I am a steaming hypocrite! I forgot I actually wrote those words until just now. Since DVSA started allowing it, I initially didn’t record tests. But then I got a camera which starts up as soon as the car is started, and I didn’t want to keep removing it, so I left it in. It’s turned out to be a Godsend in helping pupils understand what they did right/wrong on test]. There is simply no need. And there is no need for any of the many hundreds of other people who take tests daily to record theirs, either. There’s even less need for them to be egged on by someone who sells cameras on the premise that they’re being cheated out of test passes.
It must be stressed that DVSA does not object to dash cams being fitted. However, driving tests cannot be recorded [that is no longer correct in 2019, or for the last couple of years]. People seem a little confused by this, and seem to assume having the dash cam at all is a problem. It isn’t.
This article has been getting a few hits during the summer from a forum dedicated to one particular dash cam. The thread that is triggering the interest has two posts of note.
One ADI comments that he has forgotten to switch his camera off a few times on test, and that the footage makes “interesting viewing”. This is a fairly ambiguous comment – it may mean just what it says (though you can sit in on test and see exactly the same “interesting” things), or it could mean that the ADI in question disagrees with what he has seen.
However, all ambiguity is removed by another poster, who comments:
I bet they do make interesting videos! I may have to “forget” to switch mine off during test!
Regular readers will know that I often refer to the attitudes of some ADIs, and how this us-and-them approach to the DVSA doesn’t do anyone any favours. Deliberately suggesting that DVSA rules are going to be broken – and the current rule IS that no videoing of tests is allowed – is… well, you can work it out for yourself.
I’m sure some people become ADIs just to cause trouble. There is no need whatsoever for 99.9% of tests to be recorded, and the remaining 0.1% is insufficient (and insignificant enough) to justify that they should be! The DVSA is NOT routinely doing anything that warrants covert filming, and it is nauseating to keep hearing camera vendors, disgruntled pupils, and even ADIs suggest that they are.
Note this update from September 2014. DVSA will now allow insurance cameras to be fitted and running, but you still cannot record driving tests per se or any audio, nor will DVSA enter into any form of discussion about disputes arising from such insurance video footage.
My original assertion that advising people to covertly record their tests is irresponsible still stands. However, I do think DVSA has shot itself in the foot (albeit with a spud gun) over this.
I don’t think they should have changed their original stance.
Note the edits in this post. I forgot I’d written it until it started getting hits in June 2019. I have done a U-turn and record tests (but never audio). It is very useful. But note that the original purpose of the post was valid – at the time, DVSA (or DSA as it was called then) didn’t allow recording at all, and the company referred to was advising covert recording in complete opposition to that – apparently with the suggestion that test fails could be appealed.
DVSA will not entertain an appeal based on video footage for the reasons already given.
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:
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.