Independent driving will now last for 20 minutes (instead of 10 minutes)
4 out of every 5 tests will use a sat nav for the independent driving part
1 out of every 5 tests will use traffic signs for the independent driving part (as often done now)
turn in the road and reversing around a corner will no longer be tested
1 out of 3 possible manoeuvres will be tested – parallel park, bay park, or reversing in a straight line on the right-hand side of the road
one of the show me/tell me questions will be asked while you are driving
The bay park exercise could involve reversing in (as now) and driving out again, or driving in forwards, then reversing back out again. The straight reverse on the right will be for about two car lengths, then driving back out into the normal traffic flow.
The sat nav will be supplied by the examiner and won’t involve route setting. Going the wrong way won’t result in a fail as long as it is done properly (as now with independent driving).
The show me/tell question asked while driving will be of the “show me how you’d clean the windscreen if it was dirty” kind (not “show me how you’d adjust your head restraint”).
Although the changes are watered down a little from what was being discussed last year, I am totally opposed to the removal of the turn in the road and corner reverse exercises. These should have remained on the list of possible manoeuvres to make sure instructors were teaching people properly. DVSA says that “you should still be taught them by your instructor”, but that is bollocks – within 18 months the majority of ADIs won’t go anywhere near them (many won’t right from the off), and pupils are going to start kicking up a stink when they know they’re not going to be tested and yet are still being taught them on lessons (especially the ones who have trouble with them, or who can’t afford lessons as it is).
DVSA has only provided the most basic information showing response to the consultation. There is no detailed breakdown of who voted what – God only knows why you would want to ask “the public” how it should be tested on something it can’t do very well in the first place – and some obvious weasel words which amount to “well, even though people said ‘yes’, we decided it would be ‘no’”, and vice versa. I know that some weak-minded ADIs who were involved in the trials were gushing about the changes from the moment they had their first meeting with DVSA, but I can’t believe that those with a mind of their own were happy with everything.
Originally published in 2012, previously updated in 2014. New update for 2017.
I will never understand why driving instructors get themselves so wound up about mock tests. I mean, I know why they do, but I’ll never understand. The only test which matters is the actual driving test, and the outcome of any arbitrary pre-test conducted by the instructor (or one of his mates) is completely irrelevant as an indicator of how that real test will turn out. The best learner driver can make a silly mistake on the day of their test and fail, whereas the most nervous learner can put in a faultless performance against all the apparent odds. Mock driving tests are about as useful as a chocolate teapot when it comes to predicting how test-ready someone is!
I’ve mentioned before that some ADIs go to town with their little mock tests. They buy clipboards, hi-vis jackets, and wear a suit just so they can sit there pretending to be examiners. When I originally wrote this, some were already trying to use iPads (the DVSA had been carrying out trials with these at the time) to enhance their ‘mockability’ profile. Unfortunately, the problem with using tablets and computers is that when someone goes to test, for 40 minutes or so they’re not a learner but a candidate, and the examiner is not an instructor, and is not in charge of the vehicle in the same way an ADI is when he is teaching. For that reason, pissing about with gadgets during mock test performances (or at any other time) is right up there with using your mobile phone.
Comments often made on various forums suggest that some instructors spend the last few weeks before someone’s driving test just doing mock after mock after mock, gleefully reporting the “result” back to their “candidates”. At the time of the original article, some were even going public on forums when their pupil failed their real test, complaining that they had passed all their mocks and should have passed the test. It goes without saying that it was the examiners who were at fault in these instructors’ eyes.
The answer is quite simple. There is no way a mock test could ever be considered as “real”. The instructor isn’t a real examiner, even if he thinks he’s dressed like one, is armed with a colour copy of the DL25, and sits there all stern and serious (the last two Christmases, all of ours at one test centre have come out to tests in matching Reindeer sweaters). Even if he gets one of his mates to carry out the mock test, his mate is also not an examiner. The pupil knows this full well, and no matter how they score, they will more than likely still be shitting themselves on the day of their proper test. In fact, there’s every chance that the mock shenanigans will have made them even more nervous by gearing them up for an unpleasant experience, especially if they kept “failing”.
Mock tests seem to be of much more value to the instructor than to the pupil. ADIs start drooling over them even before they’ve got their green badges, and many seem to look forward to qualifying just so they can do the damned things. The chance to dress up and pretend to be important overrides all else.
A decent instructor will be highlighting what is and isn’t acceptable from very early in pupils’ training. If something is going well, there’s no need to say anything other than “well done”, etc. When problems arise, the change in approach is a “mock test” situation in itself. Instructors certainly should not be waiting until they start performing their “official mock tests” before relating driving skills to performance in the real test – by that stage they will be becoming habitual and will be much harder to rectify in the inevitably short time that remains,
I don’t routinely carry out mock tests for all the reasons I’ve given above. If a pupil or their parent asks me about them I explain how pointless I think they are, but that I’ll do one if they really want me to.
As an aside, some time ago I had a pupil whose father and sister used to invite themselves on to lessons. He had apparently had a lot of lessons already, and they were forever going on about the him taking his test (which they kept booking against my direct advice), and repeatedly demanded mock tests. The truth was that the young lad was special needs and was extremely slow picking things up. He’d only had a handful of lessons from me. He genuinely believed that if something in the mirror was moving further away from the car, it was actually getting nearer to it in reality, and this prevented him from being able to carry out any reversing manoeuvre. I could not let him drive unaided without continuously having to intervene to prevent serious issues arising. On one occasion, he sailed into a busy junction where five roads intersect, then – right in the middle, after a red light on the periphery of his vision caught his attention – slammed on the brakes and attempted to come to a stop. In order to make a point, I gave in and attempted to “mock test” him – I think I had my hands on the steering wheel more than he did. Even after this, his father still wanted him to “have a go” at the test. I refused point blank and didn’t hear from them again.
I make it clear to all my pupils that I cannot possibly simulate a real test because I’m not an examiner. I absolutely cannot reproduce the circumstances that lead to the nerves they will experience on the day of the real test because those circumstances are an inherent part of the day of the real test. And I emphasise that if they can drive on lessons without me getting involved, they don’t need a mock test.
It’s not uncommon for me to stop a pupil from emerging at a junction as they attempt to pull out in front of oncoming traffic. It’s part of the job. Every so often, though, one of them will subsequently ask “but apart from that, was it all right?” They are incapable of understanding that purely because of “that”, the entire manoeuvre or procedure was non-existent, and the danger they had put themselves in was of infinitely greater importance than whether they were steering properly (even their MSM on approach is completely sunk if the final assessment resulting from it was so poor). The same mentality carries over to the subject of mock tests, and they use them to try and itemise things which they shouldn’t do on the real test. The worst ones for it are those who can’t afford lessons, or who want to pass quickly, and they end up with an ever-expanding list of things they shouldn’t do. Getting them to understand that if they could drive properly they wouldn’t have to be worrying about remembering what not to do is nigh on impossible (similar to how there are people who think that hiring impersonators and trying to bribe examiners are cheaper solutions compared with learning properly).
On the rare occasions I do mock tests, they’re usually the decider in an ongoing discussion about whether to move the test date, where the pupil is reluctant. I don’t think I have ever done one which lasts the same length of time as the real test – the necessary data is obtained much more quickly.
I saw this story a few days ago about a man in Norfolk who failed his driving test “in just 5 seconds”.
It reminded me of something that happened to one of my pupils about 7 years ago. He drove back into the test centre and I made my way through the waiting room to go and listen to the debrief. With hindsight, I think I heard a loud clang as I did so, but it didn’t register at the time. When I reached the car the passenger door was open and the examiner had his head in his hands and was saying:
I can’t believe you did that. I just can’t believe it.
I asked what had happened, and the examiner told me he’d asked my pupil to pull forwards into a parking bay, but he didn’t stop in time and had driven into the crash barrier surrounding the car park. I went to the front of the car and saw that there was no damage – just a very slight scuff. When I got back to the passenger side the examiner was still repeating that he couldn’t believe it. I looked at the fault sheet and said:
Do my eyes deceive me, or did he only have two faults?
The examiner replied:
That’s the whole point! It was almost a perfect drive.
Then he said he couldn’t believe it a couple more times, and added:
I’ve got to fail you because there could have been someone standing there. You can obviously drive and we’ll see you again soon.
My pupil was a very good driver, but in spite of that it took him another five attempts to pass in the end, as he picked up a different single serious fault on the four more he failed. I used to rib him about how he’d managed to fail that first one literally less than one second from the end. And I use the example to emphasise to all my other pupils that they mustn’t switch off as they head back to the test centre (which is a common issue with learners).
I should add that I have no issue whatsoever with the examiner’s decision nor with his explanation. He was 100% right. Examiners have no way of knowing how someone drives the rest of the time, which is why candidates need to be squeaky clean on their tests when it comes to safety matters. If they aren’t, the examiners have to (or should) err on the side of caution.
As for the pupil, we are still in regular contact – though I have ignored him this last weekend. He is a Chelsea supporter whose smugness is currently off the scale. And I’m not.
As for the guy in King’s Lynn in that original article, it’s a similar situation. Yes, he had a brain fart – but what if he’d had a similar fart while driving alone just as a group of school kids started to walk across a road? The examiner had to fail him, no matter how good the rest of the drive was. If he hadn’t, there’d really be no point in having a driving test system in the first place.
With new pupils, and especially (though not exclusively) those who have driven in other countries, I often say “UK rules, UK rules” at some point, as they turn into a junction and aim for the right-hand side of the road. With some, it is a deliberate act, but very new drivers it is just a steering issue.
I saw another ADI end up on a pavement and nearly through a hedge earlier this week as his pupil over steered into a junction and then didn’t straighten up (probably with a bit of gas thrown in for good measure, followed by blind panic, which usually happens). I think we’ve all been there at least once in our careers. Indeed, it was such occurrences that led me to realise that the dual controls are a useful tool for teaching beginners, and not something to avoid using at all costs.
No. Not automatically. It depends on many things, like where you do it, how many times, and how you deal with it. Stalling is NOT automatically a serious (or “major”) fault.
If you stall once when moving away or stopping, then as long as you start the car safely and move away or stop correctly afterwards, the worst that will happen is that you’ll get a driver fault (and you may not even get one of those). However, if you repeatedly stall when moving away, as a rough guide you’ll get away with it maybe two or three times (a couple more if you’re lucky) until the examiner decides it is a real problem – then you’ll get a serious fault for it.
If you stall at a junction a lot depends on what is happening behind and in front of you, and the delay, danger, and inconvenience that results. For example, if you want to emerge from a junction, stall, and miss a gap in heavy traffic – which causes inconvenience to those behind you – then you can easily get a serious fault.
If you stall in the middle of a junction (i.e., when turning right), the risk of inconveniencing others and causing a dangerous hold-up increases dramatically. It is possible to recover completely from this and come out of it with only a driver fault (and maybe not even one of those), but a serious or dangerous fault is also possible.
Much depends on how you deal with it. Stay calm, and make sure you get going again quickly and safely.
Will I fail if I stall twice?
As I said above, it depends on how and where you do it. The short answer is no, not automatically. However, stalling is a control issue, and you’re being assessed on how you control the car as part of your driving test. Any stall is bad and should be avoided, but if it happens just deal with it as I’ve explained elsewhere in this article and keep your fingers crossed.
If you stall, you can’t undo the fact that you’ve done it. But you can prevent it snowballing into other faults or further stalls.
If you repeatedly stall in the same situation – when moving off, for example – then you really can’t control the car and are probably chasing down a fail. You can’t blame nerves – the examiner is marking you on what he or she sees. As I say, avoid stalling – but deal with it properly if it happens.
If you stall several times in different circumstances – let’s say once in a queue of traffic, once during a manoeuvre, and once right at the start of the test –you just need to keep your fingers crossed and not let it worry you. You might legitimately blame it on nerves in this case, and the examiner may interpret it that way, too.
Will I fail if I stall more than three times?
An examiner once told me he worked on the “five strikes and you’re out” principle. Not all examiners adopt the same approach, and it certainly isn’t written down anywhere that they have to. I tell my pupils to assume “three strikes and you’re out – if you’re lucky!”
As I’ve said above, you can fail for stalling just once if it happens in the wrong place at the wrong time, or if you deal with it inappropriately. Stalling occurs due to poor control of the clutch and gas pedals – you cannot just blame it on nerves, though this may be a contributing factor. So, if it happens more than once it is definitely edging towards being marked as a serious fault. Three or more stalls is even further along the path.
I have seen people pass their tests with more than three stalls having been recorded. However, I’ve seen many more fail for less than that.
How many times can you stall on your test and still pass?
How long is a piece of string? You can fail for doing it once or pass after doing it any number of times. It all depends on the situation(s) involved.
Simplest advice: don’t stall. If you do, deal with it and keep your fingers crossed.
I keep stalling on lessons and my test is next week
If stalling is normally a problem on your lessons, you simply aren’t ready for your test. You need to sort the problem out and not look for ways of “getting away” with it. You should take your test when you are properly trained, not just because you want to.
Is stalling twice on my driving lesson good or bad?
As I have said elsewhere in this article, stalling is a driving fault. If you do it even once on your test, it could easily lead to a situation resulting in a fail. Do it more than once and that risk increases, because the more you do it, the more it points to an underlying lack of control.
You shouldn’t be stalling on a regular basis on your lessons – if you are, then you’re not really ready for your test. Having said that, we all make mistakes (or have “off days”), and a couple of stalls as an isolated event doesn’t mean anything at all. Just remember that even if you never stall on lessons, if you do it on your test you still run the same risk of failing.
What is a stall?
It is when the engine can’t handle what it is being asked to do and stops. The car (usually) has an engine management system which will attempt to avoid stalls at low revs, but when you try to move off with too little gas set the weight of the car slows the engine down so much it just stops. This can happen even more readily on upward slopes and hills if you don’t set enough gas, or if you don’t accelerate away hard enough as you raise the clutch further.
Sometimes, the car can’t make up its mind whether it is going to stall or keep going, and that’s when you get the “kangaroo hop” everyone associates with learners. If this happens, put the clutch down quickly and you’ll probably rescue the situation. Then apply the gas and find the bite gently again.
What is “repeated stalling”?
Someone has recently been finding the blog on that precise term. I would have thought it obvious that if you stall once, then again, then stall again when you try to move off, you are stalling “repeatedly”. Likewise, if you stall every time you try to move off, or at every junction, or set of traffic lights, you are also stalling “repeatedly”.
You shouldn’t stall at all, though it can happen to anyone. If you do stall – even once – then it is usually just a driver fault on your test. If you do it more than that – especially if you do it repeatedly – it becomes a serious fault.
Note that stalling even once can be marked as a serious (or even dangerous) fault if you do it in the wrong place or at the wrong time, as I have explained elsewhere in this article.
Why do learners stall so much?
Actually, if they’re being taught properly, most learners don’t stall much at all. The time when stalling is most likely to occur for a typical learner is when it comes to moving away promptly. Stalling occurs due to poor control of the clutch and gas pedals, as explained above, and early-stage learners have not developed this skill. So, when in a stressful situation (or if they’re not prepared) then they can easily lift the clutch too quickly, resulting in a stall or a kangaroo hop.
Stalling when moving off is not the same as stalling after they’ve stopped – or rather, it does not occur for the same reasons. It is quite common in the early stages for new drivers to pull over and take their foot off the clutch before they’ve put the car in neutral (often, they’ve tried to put it in neutral and got it into another gear instead). So, stalling after they’ve parked is a completely different situation to stalling when they’re in flowing traffic (something I’m always quick to point out to them).
Some learners find clutch control much more of a challenge, and these might stall a lot more than the majority do. It’s simply a case of working hard to correct the underlying cause, which varies from person to person.
What should I do if I stall?
Above all else, don’t panic! Your absolute main priorities are to get the car started safely and to move it promptly out of the way, maintaining control throughout.
Your priorities are NOT to automatically stamp on the footbrake, put the handbrake on, and get it into neutral. Sometimes, that’s what you will have to do – but other times it will just make the situation worse by causing a delay in getting going again. Remember that if you cause a hold up, that’s far more serious on test than a simple stall that you quickly and safely deal with. You have to decide at the time which is the best way to deal with it.
Start the car quickly, check that it’s safe, and move away.
Do I need to use the handbrake if I stall?
No. Not necessarily. Sometimes, putting the handbrake on (and/or selecting neutral) just adds to the delay. You must do what is appropriate for the particular situation you’re in.
If you’re likely to roll backwards or forwards into danger, then use the handbrake. The examiner’s brief is that you deal with things safely and maintain control if you stall – not that you systematically use the handbrake every time.
Should I go into neutral if I stall?
No. Not necessarily. However, if you are going to start the engine with the car in gear, make bloody sure you have the clutch down. Some newer cars won’t start without the clutch down anyway, but if yours isn’t one of those the car will lurch forward if you start it in gear with the clutch up. That’s almost certainly a guaranteed serious or dangerous fault because you are not in control, and you are not safe.
Should I put the handbrake on and go into neutral every time I stall?
As I explained above, this may add to the delay and allow a dangerous situation to develop, so the answer is no – not automatically, and not every time. Some instructors argue that because you might panic, then you should go through this laborious routine for every stall. That is a bit of a cop-out, though.
Every situation is different – and plenty of them are such that if you did go through the full handbrake/neutral routine then it would push you into a fail, whereas using another approach would not.
Should I stop if I stall?
No. Not necessarily. Slamming the brakes on when it isn’t necessary could quite easily cause someone to go into the back of you at a busy junction if they see you start to move. It’s hardly much consolation knowing it was technically their fault if they’ve written off your car and given you whiplash (and are probably blaming you anyway with their insurer). You have to decide whether you need to stop or not depending on the individual situation.
Why did I stall?
A lot of possible reasons, including:
not depressing the clutch before stopping
being in the wrong gear for the speed
not enough gas when moving off
bringing the clutch up too quickly
using the handbrake incorrectly (e.g., using it to stop or leaving it on when trying to move off) with the clutch up
It could be any combination of these. Before you try and move off again, make sure that you’re in the right gear. That eliminates one possible cause.
Remember that you need to calmly set the gas, find the bite, check all round, then release the handbrake. Keep your feet still once you have the bite, then after the handbrake is released apply more gas and gently raise the clutch all the way. The most common reasons that people stall when moving off are that they panic and keep lifting the clutch beyond the bite while the handbrake is still on, or they suddenly lift the clutch after they release the handbrake. It has to be a smooth action.
Keep all these stages absolutely separate. If they all start to merge together it is a recipe for disaster! There will be plenty of time to develop overlapping control once you gain experience – but as a learner you must work on the basics and keep everything structured so that you can develop good basic control skills.
Why does my car “kangaroo hop” when I change gear?
I’ve mentioned elsewhere that learners often bring the clutch up too quickly without having enough gas set. So, the car lurches forward, then decelerates as it nears stalling point. However, sometimes there is just enough gas set for it not to stall, at which point it lurches again, and then the process repeats itself. That’s the “kangaroo hop” in action.
If you don’t change gear smoothly – and I mean bring the clutch up gently, then apply the gas – you can get the same effect. You may find that it’s more of a problem if you were taught in a diesel and are having problems in a petrol car (i.e., you’re not setting enough gas), and you may find that it’s also a problem in older cars (try having your car serviced if you really think there is a fault).
In the majority of cases, it is probably because you’re changing gear too soon so you’re in the wrong gear for the speed the car is moving at. The two graphs of speed against time show how an experienced driver will accelerate in 1st gear, and when the car is well into the 2nd gear speed range he will shift into 2nd gear, then repeat for subsequent gears. Learners (and new drivers) will often robotically shift from one gear to the next before they’ve built up enough speed. They will also sometimes compound the problem by taking too long to change the gear, so the car actually slows down during gear shift.
Is lurching forward a driving fault?
Yes, and it could be regarded as serious or even dangerous depending on when and where you do it.
Lurching happens when you bring the clutch up too quickly and is pretty much the same as the “kangaroo hop”, but without as many hops. It could be very dangerous if you did it when you were stopped behind another vehicle, if pedestrians were standing in front of you, or if you were waiting to emerge into traffic.
Lurching is a sign of poor pedal (clutch) control. If you only, do it once and no one or nothing is close by you’ll probably get away with it, but if it is obvious that this is how you operate the pedals it is most likely going to be marked more seriously.
Can I fail if my gear change isn’t smooth?
You are unlikely to fail if you’re a bit rough a couple of times. But if every gear change is like a bag of spanners falling down the stairs, then it IS a fault, and you may find yourself being marked down for it. After doing it a handful of times, it COULD end up becoming a serious fault. Read the article which explains your driving test report. You’re supposed to operate the controls and pedals smoothly, so if you don’t you are at fault and could be marked down accordingly.
Note that selecting the wrong gears also progresses in a similar way, with the possible exception of getting it into 1st instead of 3rd. If you do that, the car decelerates rapidly, and that’s extremely dangerous – it’s like braking hard for no reason, and cars behind could hit you. A lot would depend on only doing it once, and not having anyone behind you when you did.
What causes my car to “switch off” when I’m driving up a steep slope?
It’s stalling. You haven’t got enough gas set, you are in the wrong gear, or a combination of both. It can happen going forwards or backwards.
If you’re talking about something else when you say “switching off”, take it to a garage and get it looked at.
How should I handle a stall?
It really depends on the situation. You can use the full handbrake/neutral procedure sometimes, but there are many other cases where just restarting the car is going to be the quickest and safest way out of a stall.
In the middle of a busy junction, for example, if you start to move forward but then stall, you could quickly start the engine while the car is still moving as long as you don’t roll into a dangerous position. Keep the clutch down as you restart it.
How do the examiners assess a stall?
DSA SOP DT1 only gives only one example:
Assessment Criteria – (example)
Driving Fault
After stalling at a road junction, handbrake applied but attempts to start the engine whilst in gear.
Serious Fault
At a road junction, engine started whilst in gear, resulting in vehicle entering the new road with potential risk to other road users.
Dangerous Fault
Any situation brought about by a lack of ability to recognise the need to operate or being unable to operate the controls, which directly affects other traffic or pedestrians and causes actual danger.
This requires interpretation because it doesn’t cover every possible situation.
To start with, serious (S) and dangerous faults (D) are easy to identify. If the car moves into the new road – whether in gear or not – it is marked S or D. The division between a driver fault and a serious (S) fault isn’t as clear cut.
If you stall and restart the engine with the clutch down and still in 1st gear, as long as there is no risk to other road users, this is technically only a driver fault (but it may not be marked even as that). It is perfectly OK to do it, and it doesn’t matter if you don’t use the handbrake as long as you’re in control.
If you start the car in gear, but have the clutch up, the car will lurch. If it doesn’t enter the new road and there is no other risk or danger, it may only attract a driver fault, although it could easily be regarded as a serious (S) fault. If you’ve applied the handbrake when this happens then it may swing things in your favour. This is why some instructors end up blindly teaching the handbrake-neutral routine – albeit without realising why they’re doing it.
Of course, if you do the same thing twice or more – i.e., lurch forward without realising the clutch is up or stall due to being in the wrong gear when trying to move off – then you’re moving deeply into serious (S) territory.
Hopefully, you can see the point here. If you are a competent driver, then you can restart and continue as if nothing happened without using the handbrake or going into neutral. But if you stall and get any of the expected behaviour wrong, the meter starts to rise – how high depends on how much of a hash you make of it! And robotically applying handbrake/neutral creates its own problems because it takes time and causes longer delays in getting moving again.
It is important to stress once more that every situation is different and has to assessed at the time it happens. What is a driver fault one time could be a dangerous (D) fault another, just because of who is on the road behind and in front of you.
Is stalling dangerous?
It depends on where you do it, but yes – it can easily be very dangerous.
Cars behind will see you start to move and will expect you to move off normally and accelerate through the junction or crossing. If you stall, they might not see you stop and could easily drive into the back of you. Rear-end shunts, as they’re called, are one of the most common bumps news drivers (and driving instructors on lessons) have to put up with. And even if the car behind you manages to stop, the one behind him might not – and it is all because you stalled.
Admittedly, from an insurance perspective it will almost certainly be considered as the fault of the driver behind who didn’t see you stop, but that’s no consolation if your car is all banged up (and your own insurance might still rise as a result, because you’re going to have to lodge a claim). Remember that even minor damage to an old vehicle might see it get written off by the insurers, and you’re not likely to get the same money you paid for it.
You might also cause serious problems if you stall in the middle of a junction as the lights change, and traffic starts moving towards you from the other roads.
Stalling when moving away from a parked position tends to get marked as only a driver fault (under “control” on the marking sheet). However, doing it repeatedly means that you can’t control the car and it usually becomes a serious fault once it is clear you cannot move off reliably.
Does stalling damage your car?
Or as the term used to find the blog went, “can stalling a diesel break ya car”?
Cars are tough, so the occasional stall is unlikely to do any harm. However, when you think about how the clutch works, if it wasn’t so tough – or if the stall was a bad one – the potential for damage is always there. Part of the problem is that a stall can vary from just asking a little too much from the car on a slope as you move away all the way up to lifting your left leg up at the same speed as a bullet whilst pushing the gas pedal to the floor with your right. And it doesn’t matter whether it is petrol or diesel.
It happened to me a couple of years ago. Without any warning whatsoever, a pupil who was otherwise a perfectly competent driver at that stage of his training somehow managed to put the clutch down and bring it up again twice in roughly the same time it takes to blink when he panicked in moderate traffic. As a direct result of hammering the clutch surfaces together like that, I needed a new clutch (£800).
Just face the fact that stalling is not good however you look at it, and that you should avoid doing it.
Can you stall in neutral?
No. Not unless there’s something wrong with your car. Learn how the clutch works, then you’ll understand.
Can you stall a diesel?
Yes. People who have reached test standard only have problems when they switch to a petrol car because they have been taught the finer points of control incorrectly. Simply because they didn’t stall in the diesel, they learnt in doesn’t mean diesels can’t be stalled – they can.
It’s worth noting that some modern cars are “semi-stallproof”. If you stall them, then immediately put the clutch down, they will automatically restart. They still stall, but there’s no fiddling with the key and restarting and moving off again is much quicker. You still need to make sure you know why you stalled, though – otherwise you’ll just do it again.
Do petrol cars stall more than diesel ones?
They stall more easily. If driven properly – with enough gas and in the correct gear – petrol cars do not stall any more or less than diesels do.
I had my clutch replaced and now the biting point is completely different
Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt! And it’s horrible, isn’t it?
Don’t worry, though. When I bought an 18-month-old Citroen Xantia many years ago, at its first MOT the garage told me the clutch was worn and would need replacing soon. Since I didn’t do many miles, I ended up driving it for at least another 4 years, but eventually the clutch began to slip, and I had to bite the bullet. When I went to pick it up after the clutch was replaced, I couldn’t move it out of the garage!
As time had gone by, the biting point had risen gradually, and I had just gotten used to it. With the new clutch, the bite was now right back at the lower end of the pedal movement and my foot’s “memory” kept trying to go to the higher position – which meant stalling. A lot.
It took a few hours to get used to it, and a few minutes each day for about a week until my foot was re-trained. It’ll be the same for you, so just persevere and it’ll be all right.
I just bought a car but I keep stalling it
A lot of my learners tell me this. Again, don’t worry. There’s nothing wrong with it or you. All cars are different and whenever you get in a new one it will take time to get used to it.
My car has a weak biting point
Although this could mean a lot of things (it was a real search term used to find the blog), it most likely refers to the clutch slipping. That usually means the clutch is virtually gone and needs to be replaced. Trust me, if you try to drive your car it could easily just give up on you and leave you stranded (with expensive recovery charges).
Why do I keep stalling my diesel car?
Usually, diesels are harder to stall than petrol cars. If you are stalling your diesel – and you are absolutely certain that if you got in a petrol car then you wouldn’t stall – my first reaction would be to suggest you have a fault and need to get it looked at in a garage.
As I have explained, a stall is when the engine is asked to do too much and stops. It usually happens because you bring the clutch up too quickly, don’t have enough gas set, or a combination of both these things. Stalling is more likely when you’re moving off uphill, and it gets even more likely as the gradient increases (i.e. the steeper the hill).
Are you sure you’re putting gas on? Your instructor’s car – if it was a diesel – was likely to be new and properly serviced, and you may well have been taught (incorrectly) not to set any gas. It isn’t just petrol cars that become more temperamental as they get older, and it may be you are trying to drive your instructor’s way in a car that just cannot handle it.
Why do petrol cars stall?
All manual cars can stall. Diesel engines are less prone to stalling because they usually have more torque – or “turning power” – which means they’re harder to stop. People who have been taught inappropriately (i.e., not taught to set gas or allowed to be clumsy with the clutch) will have problems if they drive a petrol car simply because its lower torque makes it easier to stop the engine when it has load applied to it.
Will a racing accelerator help me stop stalling in traffic?
This was actually used to find the blog.
If you mean fitting some kind of boy racer mod, then NO. Stalling happens because you aren’t controlling the pedals properly, not because of the kind of pedal you have.
If you mean applying some gas before you find the bite, then more gas before you raise the clutch further, YES. That’s what I have explained above.
Can I fail for over-revving?
Short answer, yes, though it may not even get marked if you do it once or twice – slightly. Doing it all the time, or if it is grossly excessive, shows you have poor pedal control or the wrong attitude to driving.
Over-revving is bad for the clutch and is potentially dangerous. You should not try to move off with a wheel spin.
As DVSA says, they have a duty of care. However, what they don’t say is that tests are pretty much only ever cancelled when it is icy or particularly foggy. I don’t blame them one bit, since the majority of test candidates will not have driven in fog or snow/ice before (many will have cancelled lessons for just that reason in the past, or their instructor will have) and doing it for the first time on their tests is a pretty risky operation for anyone within a 2 mile radius of them.
I can’t understand why instructors get so worked up about bad weather cancellations. Fair enough, it’s lost income (well, for most it is – some still charge their pupils), but it isn’t as if the well-run driving school is going to have a turnover based totally on income from driving tests. It’s more like a maximum of two or three a week.
My own advice is:
don’t book early morning tests in winter
instructors should avoid having too many tests in a single week… especially in winter
instructors should warn pupils at the outset that tests get cancelled in bad weather
instructors shouldn’t act like it’s never happened before in front of the pupil if they get cancelled
instructors shouldn’t blame DVSA
You can whinge and whine as much as you want if tests get cancelled, but you won’t change the test centre manager’s mind. Life is much more relaxing if you just accept that it happens and learn to deal with it. That way, you can minimise – or even eliminate – any final loss incurred, and help to prevent childish and inaccurate advice being passed on to future generations of learners.
How does that saying go? If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
The comments began almost immediately back in 2015. One ADI questioned DVSA’s criterion for cancelling due to fog, citing “bad mist/moderate fog” as an example of a poor reason for tests being postponed. As I said, many ADIs believe that they are skilled meteorologists.
Many test candidates will never have driven in foggy conditions before. Furthermore, fog can be patchy and unpredictable – I’ve lost count of the number of times I have been driving on the motorway during the winter and early-evening or early-morning fog banks start appearing, and you can be driving in totally clear conditions one moment, only to be unable to see more than a few car lengths ahead a second or two later. There is no way I would expect DVSA to risk either their examiners or the candidates’ wellbeing if such a risk exists, and I trust them to make the decision. I also don’t go around looking for evidence to contradict them.
Another ADI referred to a situation where it was obvious that a test was going to be cancelled, and yet he was forced to pick a pupil up in dangerous conditions since DVSA would not confirm that the test was off until 20 minutes before it was due to go out. If what he has said is correct, then he definitely has a point. His test centre should have been rather more sensible. We’re a bit more fortunate up this way – before now I’ve spoken with the test centre manager or an examiner and they’ve actually asked me if I’d like them to make an immediate decision rather than delay that decision (when conditions were very bad about three years ago). Based on my limited meteorological knowledge (yes, I admit it!), they tend to cancel whole mornings if things are bad, or up until a certain time if they think things might improve, and that really helps me when it comes to picking up pupils. Maybe a word with the test centre in question would be a more fruitful area to investigate for that commenter instead of just bad-mouthing them.
Will my test be cancelled due to bad weather?
I’ve answered this just about every year since I started the blog. YES. YOUR TEST CAN GET CANCELLED IF THE WEATHER IS BAD. If it IS cancelled, you will get another one free of charge.
Typical examples of ‘bad weather’ include:
thick fog in any part of the test area
falling snow with poor prognosis
lying snow on roads
ice
extremely high winds
flooding
In theory, ANY type of ‘bad weather’ could cause a cancellation, but they usually don’t. I’ve never had one cancelled due to wind or flooding, but I have the others.
This took me by surprise. An email alert from DVSA announces that Clifton Test Centre will cease operating on 25 January 2017. It is not relocating, which means Nottingham will have three test centres instead of four going forward (pending any further announcements, of course).
I’m sure there will be those who will find fault with this. Clifton doesn’t request a bay park manoeuvre (it has no bays), and while DVSA is already trying its hardest to dumb the test down so that all you have to do to pass is to be able open the car door in less than three tries, there are already plenty of instructors working towards a similar goal in their own way by avoiding having to teach the bay park manoeuvre wherever possible.
Note that there is no suggestion that Nottingham will be conducting fewer tests – another likely conclusion that will be drawn by some. The examiners at Clifton rotate anyway, and they’ll just work out of the main centres.
Someone found the blog on the search term “cars not suitable for dvsa driving test”. The rules for this are actually quite simple and are given on the GOV.UK website.
You definitely can’t use a BMW Mini convertible, a Ford KA convertible, a Toyota iQ, or a VW Beetle convertible. You are advised to contact DVSA if you plan to use ANY convertible or ANY panel van (and I would assume that includes those semi-estate cars without side windows you often see BT engineers or technical reps driving).
There’s no point turning up in a car DVSA won’t accept, and arguing with them if you do is likely to get you arrested – plus you’ll lose your money.
I mentioned back in June that Beeston Test Centre was moving away from the Beeston Business Park. Good riddance to the place, and that stupid cow in reception who made sure that DVSA and ADIs were made as unwelcome as possible. I’ll miss the couple who run the cafe and the friendly black cat in the security building (security staff were OK, too), but that’s all.
Tests are now being conducted out of The Village Hotel in Chilwell, and after less than a week there are already problems.
Referring to my earlier report, DVSA noted:
…access to ‘The Village Hotel Nottingham’ venue is only available to those candidates attending for test; you won’t be allowed to use this site for practice either during or outside of working hours (including weekends)
My comment in the same article was:
I can guarantee that there will be some arseholes who ignore that and try to practice bay park in there.
I have it on good authority that The Village is already unhappy due to the number of complaints from its patrons about driving school cars blocking the car parks at all hours of the day, and that there is a very real risk that DVSA will get kicked out before a permanent relocation can be secured.
Let’s make no mistake here. The Village has always been a snobbish place (trust me, I used to go in there as a guest not long after it was first built) and like most gyms and health clubs it attracts chavs (albeit ones with aspirations to being middle class) who would complain about anything. But just as The Village has its sizable clutch of Village Idiots ready to exaggerate matters, I think I have made it abundantly clear over the years that the driving instruction industry – I don’t think I’ll ever be able to bring myself to call it a “profession” – is literally bursting at the seams with people who are capable of providing more than enough inconvenience to the public for complaints to be raised. I saw several the last time I was at The Village, just driving around after all the tests had gone out, and the only reason they didn’t try bay parking there and then was that you can’t find more than two adjacent bays free at a time during the day, and no ADI I’ve ever seen parks next to anyone. Oh dear no.
DVSA itself is partly to blame for this. It began at Colwick a few years ago, when ADIs were turning up to practice bay parking while tests were starting and ending and getting in everybody’s way. Sometimes, there were more halfwits practising bay parking than there were candidates on test, and that is no exaggeration. It was getting beyond a joke, so the centre manager put signs up telling people to stay away – a futile gesture, since most ADIs can’t read anyway, and it had little effect. The last straw for me came when one of my pupils picked up a serious fault during the bay park exercise for being too close to a parked car, which just happened to be one of these dickheads. I made an official complaint that these people were demonstrably influencing some test scores, and it was taken seriously at test centre level.
It was referred higher within DVSA, and then the bombshell was dropped by the idiot of an area manageress, who decreed that she couldn’t stop people coming into the test centre car park since it was a public facility (or some such description). The test centre was ordered to remove the notices telling people to keep out, and ever since then these inadequate ADIs who cannot teach properly anywhere else have been allowed to come and go as they please.
So, DVSA created a problem in not setting boundaries for ADIs. The situation is analogous to keeping a cobra as a pet – no matter how long you have it, how much you feed it, it will still bite you if you try to get friendly with it. ADIs are DVSA’s own pet cobra – and DVSA still insists on trying to get chummy with it rather than treat as the dumb and dangerous animal it is. The upshot is that whatever DVSA says ADIs should or shouldn’t do, many of them will deliberately – with malice aforethought – do exactly the opposite. And DVSA is stupid enough to let them get away with it.
Anyone who has driven into The Village car park with a pupil who is not on test is an idiot who shouldn’t be allowed to remain on The Register. Their actions are a gnat’s whisker away from having tests anywhere near Beeston suspended until a permanent site is found.
A lot of people use Bach’s Rescue Remedy (or something similar, like Kalms) for their nerves when driving – especially on their tests. Someone found the blog today on the search term “can bachs rescue remedy make you over the drink drive limit because it contains alcohol[?]”
The original Bach’s extracts contained up to 40% of alcohol by volume. These days, I believe that ‘original’ Rescue Remedy only contains 27%. And some modern versions are alcohol-free. What does this mean in practice? Well, a pint of normal strength beer (3.5% alcohol) would contain 19.9mls of ethanol (which is what alcohol is). One of the alcohol-based Rescue Remedy products in the 20ml size would only be anywhere near this… IF it were neat (100%) alcohol to begin with, and IF you used a whole container of it at a time. It isn’t neat, and you only use a few drops of it at a time.
However, ‘original’ Rescue Remedy is only about 27% alcohol in the first place, so a whole 20ml container of it would be equivalent to just under a third of a pint of beer. And since a 20ml container contains between 20-30 doses, each dose is equivalent to less than 10mls (or two teaspoons) of normal beer.
So, unless you were already so close to being over the limit that a couple of teaspoons of beer took you over, the answer is no. If you are that close to being over the limit, that’s your problem. Rescue Remedy cannot take you over the drink drive limit – not in the UK, at any rate – if you haven’t been drinking already. However, if you live somewhere they have a zero-tolerance alcohol limit, and if you had just squirted the stuff into your mouth when you got pulled over, a breath test might be a bit unpredictable, so you’d be better off getting one of the alcohol-free types.
There are alcohol-free version for kids, the spray version is only water-based, and you can get it in tablet, pastille, chewing gum, and even rub-in cream form.
The original type does. But they do alcohol-free versions. The water-based sprays, and tablet, pastille, and chewing gum variants are alcohol-free. They even do a cream you rub on to your skin.
How much alcohol is in one drop of Rescue Remedy/Bachs?
You really should stop overthinking this.
The maximum amount of alcohol it will contain is 40% by volume. You’d have to drink several entire bottles of Bachs/Rescue Remedy in one go to get the same amount of alcohol as found in a pint of normal beer – and that’s assuming it’s the original type that has alcohol in it. One dose contains negligible alcohol unless you are already drunk.
In short, you’d have to drink three or four bottles neat, and if you’re doing that, it’s your own fault. The same is true if you’ve already been drinking and you then get pulled over. And there is no alcohol in the pastilles, chewing gum, or cream.
What is Grape Alcohol?
For all practical purposes, it is brandy. Both grape alcohol and brandy are produced by distilling either wine or wine ‘must’ (pomace). Brandy for drinking is usually higher quality, and is distilled from wine. Grape alcohol isn’t usually meant for drinking by itself and is made from the cheaper pomace. The original Rescue Remedies were made using genuine brandy, I believe (usually this is at least 35% alcohol). These days, they use grape alcohol (at 27% alcohol).
Can I use grape alcohol for anxiety?
For driving, absolutely not, under any circumstances. Grape alcohol is brandy, so you’d be drink-driving. You should not drink alcohol to calm your nerves, because it also impairs your reactions.
Can alcoholics take Rescue Remedy?
The alcohol-free types, yes. I don’t want to say that it’s OK to take the regular kind, because it depends on the individual. A quick squirt might not do any harm whatsoever for some alcoholics, but if the person gets it into their head that they’re taking alcohol…? It’s up to you.
Can Rescue Remedy make you drunk?
If you use the alcoholic type as per the label, no. If you drank a lot of it – and I mean several bottles at the same time – then it could. But anyone choosing this way to get drunk would be crazy, as it would cost about 10-20 times the price of a bottle of cheap cider.
Can it take you over the limit?
Technically, yes, the alcoholic type could. But if you already had so much alcohol in your system that two drops of Rescue Remedy was going to make any difference, it would just serve you right. On its own – if you haven’t already been drinking – no, it can’t take you over the limit.
Is it illegal to drive on Rescue Remedy?
No. Even if you used the kind which contains alcohol and comes in 20ml bottles, you’d need to drink at least ten bottles of the stuff in one go to imbibe the equivalent of two pints of beer. Even if that still seems a likely possibility, the fact that it would cost you over £50 to do it suggests you perhaps ought not to operate any sort of machinery – for your good, and everyone else’s.
Isn’t it just the alcohol that calms you down?
No. You are not taking enough alcohol to have any inebriating effect if you use the recommended dosage.
Nothing calms you down – except your own mind (or beta blockers, which are a prescription medicine). Rescue Remedy (and the like) effectively don’t have anything active in them (they are diluted dozens of times to get the final product). Even if they did contain pharmacologically significant amounts of the plant extracts in them, they simply don’t do anything.
If anyone claims that Rescue Remedy calms them down, it is all in their mind. That’s not necessarily a bad thing – if it works, it works – but it is not a proper medicine. It is a placebo, of benefit only to those susceptible to the placebo effect.
Is there anything that can help my anxiety/nerves when driving?