Anyone who reads the blog regularly will probably be aware of my general disdain for groups like IAM and RoSPA when they start poking their noses into the affairs of driving instructors or offering “advice” about learning to drive (my personal opinion, of course). This is especially true of IAM, membership of which you’d be forgiven for thinking allows you to remain active in the Neighbourhood Watch even when you’re not at home! So when I saw this headline in my newsfeeds I wasn’t holding out much hope.
To be fair to RoSPA, though, they do make it clear that driving lessons are best taken with a qualified ADI (which will probably upset most IAM members). Their new website – which is the point of the news article in the first place – is actually quite sensible, and it certainly doesn’t overtly come across as seeking to undermine the ADI’s role (IAM take note). It focuses on what supervising drivers should be doing during private practice. You can view the site here.
Having said all that, I can’t help think that the goals of the site are somewhat unrealistic. On its home page it says:
This website will help you [the supervising driver] to:
During the learning period
Ensure the learner meets all the legal requirements for learning to drive
Ensure you meet all the legal requirements for supervising them during private practice
Allow the learner to get as much supervised practice as possible
Keep in touch with your young driver’s instructor and co-ordinate what happens in private practice with what happens in the professional lessons
Get the most benefit from practice drives
This creates problems right from the start. Unless the supervising driver is an ADI then he or she is unlikely to be able to fulfil all these requirements. Even IAM and RoSPA members will be lacking such information, since knowledge of it is not a prerequisite of membership of those organisations. The vast majority of parents and supervising drivers couldn’t possibly tie up all the loose ends. Elsewhere on the site RoSPA says:
[As supervising driver you should not] contradict the driving techniques taught by the instructor, even if you disagree with them. If you are concerned about something, make a note of it and discuss it with the instructor at a later date.
This contradicts the thrust of that first part. In fact, a large percentage of full licence holders DO disagree with what ADIs teach their kids or spouses, and often think that they know best. So in spite of the first quote, the clear implication is that RoSPA expects the supervising driver to NOT be fully competent in terms of the requirements list they have given. Furthermore, they say:
It is very important to maintain good communication with your learner’s instructor.
Aaaargh. Having parents or spouses interfering all the way through is NOT beneficial for the pupil (or the ADI). A quick hello/how’s-he-doing/goodbye is all you or the learner want most of the time, and longer discussions only become absolutely necessary if there is a problem AND if the person you’re talking to can actually influence the resolution. Some parents will happily interfere even when they’re not providing private practice. The worst ones for it are those who can’t cut the apron strings, which is often an underlying reason why little Jonny or Kylie isn’t progressing as fast as they could do in the first place. It is best if the learner is left to get on with their lessons without mum or dad poking their noses in all the time.
Personally, I like to show the parents what to look for – if they’re going to be supervising – by having them sit in on a lesson or two. I get uncomfortable if they want to come more often, like one I had a few months ago whose parents or big sister would invite themselves whenever they felt like it, even though they were not supervising him in any private practice, because they were desperate for him to take his test whether he could drive or not (and they didn’t like the fact I wouldn’t let him because he was dangerous). I know that they are not there for the reasons I’d expect them to be there for.
RoSPA’s site also advises:
If possible, show the learner’s instructor the ‘Driver’s Record’ or the telematics [‘black box’ insurance module if it is fitted] data frequently so they can see how the learner is doing in their practice drives.
This is yet more opportunity for parental demands for little Jonny or Kylie to go to test when the instructor doesn’t think they’re ready. The only people completing any sort of documentation should be the learner and the instructor. The last thing the ADI needs is mummy and daddy filling out driver records and putting ticks in all the boxes on the strength of a successful 5 minute driver every Saturday to Tesco. I’ve lost count of the times where mummy or daddy insists Jonny or Kylie “can drive”, and yet they bloody well can’t when they’re on their lessons. RoSPA needs to have a think about whether or not we should be teaching “safe driving for life”, because involving mummy and daddy in the decision over test readiness is hardly likely to result in Jonny or Kylie taking more lessons.
You can read the rest for yourself. Although some of it is good, RoSPA seems to be looking for solutions to problems which can never actually be solved, and by involving people who the unlikeliest to come up with a solution anyway. As a result, it is offering misleading and ambiguous advice.
Private practice is definitely useful for getting road time, which builds experience and confidence. It is usually not that useful for practising manoeuvres unless the private car is the same model as the instructors car, and it definitely isn’t useful for covering new material (guaranteed to create a bad habits). Most private practice involves driving the same routes to go to shopping or to see their grandparents.
As long as they are picked up on basic faults – and not even always then – learners are benefitting from private practice. It doesn’t need to be of the same intensity as a normal driving lesson.
I saw something recently where someone was blaming the fall in numbers of those seeking to become driving instructors on the recession (i.e. the last two years) and, naturally, on RED Driving School – who were actually sold and became a completely different company to the one reviled by most know-it-alls way back in 2010 (i.e. overFOUR years ago).
In actual fact – and it IS a fact – the numbers seeking training began to fall off at least 4 or 5 years ago (not two), which is probably part of the reason why the original RED got into difficulties in the first place. What has actually happened is that the recession has caused many struggling ADIs to quit the job altogether, which has in turn created a market for those who are thinking about becoming ADIs themselves. Indeed, the recession has also created a pool of such people as its effects have not been confined to just the driver training industry. In essence, the recession has created a market and supplied the consumers all in one go. I commented on this a few months ago in the ADI News version of the blog (the New Year issue, I think), and predicted a run on those wishing to become instructors. From what I’ve seen, this is already happening, and even on forums the number of new members asking for advice (and being given given lots of the negative variety) is noticeably greater.
The effects of the recession (particularly the rise out of it) don’t end there, either. I am picking up a new pupil typically every other day at the moment. I’m not exaggerating when I say I may have to close my books for a while to new pupils – and considering that I work weekends and evenings if required, it takes a lot to fill my diary to the level that it’s at right now. This time last year was very quiet – that’s when the recession finally hit me – and it lasted until the summer. Since then it’s just been upwards.
I do find it surprising that so many so-called “professionals” can continue to fail to understand that RED is not the company it used to be in all sorts of different ways. and essentially just retains the name. To keep trying to use the RED name as some sort of dirty weapon – as if all this didn’t happen – is just foolish, and betrays a very bitter outlook.
The blog gets hundreds of hits from people who have been taught to drive in a diesel, but who then find that they keep stalling now that they have bought a petrol car. When I pick up a new pupil I can often tell straight away if they have previously been taught in a diesel because many of them don’t set any gas before trying to move off. Even if they don’t stall every time, you can be sure they will stall right when you least want them to – at roundabouts or traffic lights when trying to move away briskly, for example.
Anyone who has been specifically taught not to set gas when moving off normally has been taught wrong! They have simply been taught to drive a diesel, and only a diesel (and only their instructor’s diesel at that) – and as soon as they get in a petrol car they will stall it. In many cases it seems to boil down to some half-assed ideas certain instructors have about saving money on fuel (in theory, not setting gas saves them a penny or two a week).
Let’s get this straight: if someone has been taught not to set gas when moving off normally during lessons in a diesel, and the minute they get in a petrol car they can’t move it without stalling, then they have been taught wrong. It isn’t rocket science to work this out.
Face facts here. If you’re spending somewhere approaching £1,000 to learn to drive, do you think you’re getting good value for money if the moment you buy your own car you can’t drive it properly? If you keep stalling it, with all the dangers that could result? And all because your instructor didn’t teach you properly in order to save some imagined coppers?
Simply because they are learners, new drivers are often not precise enough with their clutch control, and what they’ve been taught to get away with in a diesel just backfires when they move to a petrol car. What makes the situation even worse is that many of these people don’t even know if the car they learnt to drive in was a petrol or diesel, so the instructors who teach this misleading method are obviously not doing their jobs properly on several levels. The unsuspecting new driver hasn’t got a clue how badly they’ve been taught until they get in their own car and discover they can’t move it.
I drove a diesel for many years. I’d driven petrol cars before that, and I taught in a petrol car for many years. Now I’m back to using a diesel. I have never driven my diesels any differently to the way I drove the petrol cars – and I never found a problem moving between the different types. There are four basic combinations when operating the pedals in any normal manual vehicle:
set the gas before the bite
set the gas at exactly the same time as the bite
set the gas after the bite
don’t set any gas at all
It’s fairly obvious that the learner needs the first option, certainly when learning to move off correctly. The second option is almost impossible for them to get right every time, and the third and fourth options (which the second one turns into if you get it wrong) can easily result in stalls. If your instructor is not teaching you to set the gas before finding the bite during normal driving, my advice would be to find another one quickly before you waste too much money. If you don’t you’ll join the ranks of those who start searching for the reason why they keep stalling as soon as they get their own car.
If you really know what you are doing, it’s up to you whether or not you set the gas or not. Most modern cars – petrol or diesel – will move off without it, but not very quickly. However, you need gas to move off briskly no matter what type of car you’re driving, and that includes automatics as well as diesels. Moving off briskly is particularly important if you’re dealing with a busy roundabout or a gap in traffic at a junction. Moving off slowly is dangerous, and on test it could easily end up with you failing. Even if you’ve passed your test, you’re going to really piss people off if you don’t get moving promptly, and you could end up in hospital (or worse) if you stall after entering a roundabout or busy junction.
Should you set the gas before finding the bite?
My advice is to set the gas first, then find the bite – whatever manual car you’re driving. If you don’t, you stand a good chance of stalling either now or in the future.
If you’re being taught in a diesel, bear in mind that you’ll almost certainly end up driving a petrol car at some point. You’re paying your instructor to teach you how to drive – not to play some half-assed game where he thinks it saves him money if you don’t touch the accelerator. It’s your lessons, your test, and your money, so work it out. There are some very poor instructors out there teaching very questionable stuff.
But do you HAVE to set the gas first?
There’s no rule that says you should, but if you don’t you’re likely to stall more often, particularly in a petrol car. If that keeps happening to you then I think the question answers itself, doesn’t it? If you found this blog because you keep stalling and still can’t work out the answer, let me say it for you: YES. SET GAS FIRST. Some cars simply won’t move without gas anyway – and these tend to be the older ones most new drivers will end up owning to start with. However, if you want to move slowly – during a manoeuvre or when edging out from behind an obstruction, for example – it is perfectly acceptable just to use the bite without any gas (if your car will handle it).
How many revs should I set before finding the bite?
It depends on the car you are driving. Don’t even think about trying to set it by numbers, otherwise you’ll get in a mess. Just set enough gas that the engine picks up slightly (i.e. the revving sound increases a little). How much gas depends on the slope you’re on – you can move off downhill without any gas at all, for example, whereas on a steep upward gradient you’ll have to set quite high revs compared with moving off on the level. It also depends on your car, because as I’ve already mentioned an older vehicle may well need more revs than a new one to avoid stalling in any given situation.
My instructor said to set 1,500 revs
Trying to set the gas by numbers creates a delay and distracts you, but setting it by ear (and feel) is much quicker. Trying to set 1,500 revs on the rev counter is very specific and you will begin to focus on adjusting it, whereas just listening (and feeling) for the engine pick up may well cover a range of as much as 1,000-1,800 revs (in a petrol car) on a level surface. As long as the car isn’t screaming at you – and you’ll know if you’ve got too much gas set – or stalling a lot then you have the correct amount of gas.
The chances are this idea boils down to your instructor trying to save money again. He or she doesn’t want you to rev to 1,600 because 1,500 is more economical. But that’s not the best way to learn to drive. Also note that the revs are often different between petrol and diesel cars, and the numbers here refer to petrol.
How can you explain how to set the gas to a pupil?
Everyone is different, and you’ve got to find the right words or exercises that click with any particular pupil.
Nine times out of ten, all it takes is for the instructor to ask the pupil to touch the gas pedal when he is explaining the pedals. They’ll often press too hard and the engine will rev loudly. Now get them to touch it as lightly as they can – and to hold their foot still – and ask them to listen to the noise the engine makes. That sound is what they should be aiming for.
You can liken the amount of pressure to trying to squeeze one drop of water out of a wet sponge (this works for the clutch, too, when finding the bite), one drop of juice out of a grape or orange and so on. Literally anything that makes sense to the pupil. It often helps to use something that you know they will relate to – playing computer games, football, a musical instrument, and so on.
Can I start my car without the biting point?
Check that you understand what the biting point is! It involves the clutch – and you do not want the biting point set when you start the car.
Perhaps you mean “should I set gas” when you start your car. The answer to that is “it depends”. Some cars don’t need it, and some – usually older ones – possibly will.
Can my car move away without setting gas?
I don’t know! Try it. Most newer cars can do it, petrol or diesel, but older ones – and especially ones which haven’t been serviced – may well stall.
Being able to move without gas is useful for low-speed manoeuvres and driving in slow-moving traffic, but not for normal moving off. If your car won’t do it then you’ll simply have to use gas. If you don’t, you’ll likely stall.
You don’t need gas on an instructor’s car
You do if you want to move away quickly! Instructors’ cars are no different to any other car other than for the fact they have an extra set of pedals fitted. The only reason you can often get away without setting gas on an instructor’s car is that it is usually quite new and well-maintained and is less susceptible to stalling. Virtually any new car will move off easily without gas – and this is especially true if it is a diesel vehicle with its higher torque. Using no gas is useful for slow speed manoeuvring, but it’s useless if you want to pull out on to a busy roundabout or junction and get away from other traffic.
As I’ve said elsewhere, if you’re being taught not to set gas when moving off normally, you’re being taught wrong. As soon as you get in a petrol car – and probably one that’s a few years older and more temperamental – you will end up stalling.
Should you only use the bite when reversing?
It depends on the situation. Since it is a little more difficult to steer accurately and safely when reversing compared with driving forwards, trying to do it faster is just asking for trouble. When you apply gas, it’s usually to go faster, so in this sense it often makes more sense to reverse with little or no gas so you can maintain control (if your car will let you).
Having said that, if you need to reverse in a straight line backwards, and you can be sure the road is clear behind you, and you can control the car, there is no rule that says you can’t use gas to go as fast as you need to.
One of my ex-pupils’ brother got in hot water recently with his dad. He tried to reverse out of their driveway at speed, and smashed the gate posts. He’d only recently passed his test, and to add to the irony their driveway is big enough to do a U-turn in, plus their gates are those electric ones which open and close automatically. The car was on loan from a grandparent and, along with the gates, sustained significant damage. It’s anyone’s guess at what was going on in his head to behave so foolishly.
Be sensible about trying to reverse with gas. If you aren’t very good at reversing, don’t use too much or try to go too fast. There is a growing number of cars these days with big vertical dents on the back where people have hit street lamps or road signs while reversing.
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.
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.
Should I brake before I put the clutch down?
It depends on how fast you’re going. If you’re slowing down from a cruising speed, then you should brake first – that way you get the advantage of “engine braking” (this is where the engine slows down as you take your foot off the gas, but since the clutch is still up it will also slow down the car). If you put the clutch down first, the car is effectively free-wheeling under its own momentum and the force of gravity, and that means the brakes have to work harder as there is no engine braking. On a downward slope, it will actually speed up in most cases if you put the clutch down first.
If you are slowing down below the lower speed for the gear you are in, then you will have to put the clutch down to either stop or change to a lower gear. If you brake too much for the gear you’re in, the car will start to rumble to let you know it is struggling. That rumble is a precursor to stalling, so you should change gear if it happens. Brake too much without depressing the clutch and you’ll stall.
I’m looking for advice on how to teach pupils in a diesel car
Teaching people in a diesel should be no different to teaching them in a petrol car. If you teach people to drive a diesel differently to how you’d teach them in a petrol car then you are not doing your job properly. They paid you to teach them so they can get a manual driving licence – not a diesel-specific one. If they don’t set gas first, the instant they get in a petrol car they will stall it. As I said at the start, the blog gets many hits from people having exactly this problem: they passed their tests in a diesel, and now find they cannot move away without stalling after buying a (usually quite old) petrol car.
Why do some instructors teach pupils using no gas in diesel cars?
Some of them have openly stated in the past that not revving the engine saves them money by using less fuel. I’ve read that on various forums over the years, and as with most things once word gets around, the practice becomes common even when the reason (however flaky it was in the first place) is long forgotten. The sum saved by not setting gas is minimal – it would probably amount to a few pounds a year on a mileage of around 30,000, even if it could be measured among all the other variables. A few hours driving into a strong headwind or sitting in a queue would cancel it out!
Another reason, I suspect, is that it is easier to teach someone when only one pedal is involved, so the method is perhaps also a bit of a cop out by those who can’t handle the challenge of teaching their pupils to drive properly.
Let me repeat the question I asked earlier: if you pass your test but then can’t move your own car off the driveway without stalling it because no one taught you to use the gas, have you received value for money? I think you can work that out for yourself.
Within the guide is a link to a PDF file showing what the new Standards Check Marking Sheet will look like from April onwards.
A reader also commented to me recently that the DSA had “taken down” the PST sheets from their website. I wasn’t aware that they had them there, but if they ever did – and it would be great IF they did – I would imagine that these will have to change at some point to keep in line with the Standards Check/CCL approach.
The PST Sheets can be downloaded from the blog here. I stress that I can only vouch for these up until 7 April 2014.
The DSA (soon to be known as the DVSA) has sent out an email announcing that from 7 April 2014, the date from which the new Standards Check will replace the original Check Test, a new grading structure will be in place for ADIs.
The current scoring system has grade 4 (satisfactory), grade 5 (good), and grade 6 (excellent). Grades 1-3 are below standard or “fails”. The new system will simply have three grades: grade A (good), grade B (satisfactory), and Fail.
In all the years I have been doing this job I honestly can’t remember having been asked once what my grade is. Even when the topic has arisen later on during lessons, no one has shown any real interest in the grades. The only person who DOES have in interest is me – in the early days I wanted to improve, and in the present I want to maintain my standards. My grade was a good way of monitoring that.
I don’t have any issues with the new grading system from a practical perspective. It won’t alter the way I do my job, or affect my earnings, and unless I suddenly start being a crap instructor the chances are I’ll just end up with an A (even a B wouldn’t matter, except to my ego). Politically, though, the change is pointless. No matter what the DSA/DVSA says, parents and learners don’t give a toss about grades, and combining the original grades 5 and 6 into a single grade A hardly helps instructors “promote themselves” in any useful way. All most learners are interested in initially is passing for the least cost, then – after many have been bitten by cheapos delivering poor instruction because they’ve cut their overheads to minimise the effect of cutting their prices – a damage limitation exercise with a decent instructor charging decent prices.
Mind you, it remains to be seen whether or not the new Standards Check actually fails more instructors than the previous system. The DSA/DVSA’s preoccupation with “sub-standard instruction” that it never actually attacks head-on might come to something then.
Recently, I’ve picked up a handful of pupils from other instructors, and given the number of hours they’ve had in lessons – bearing in mind that they have now had one or two sessions with me, and I’ve been able to assess their capabilities – their lack of progress towards the test is shocking. They’re far more able than their progress suggests.
One pupil commented that she’d had over 50 hours and “couldn’t understand the stickers” in her school car because they “didn’t line up” the way her instructor kept saying. I’ve written about these bloody stickers before. They don’t work.
And another immediately stalled my car because she’d been taught in a diesel and her jackass of an instructor had taught her not to use gas (presumably, just to save him a few tenths of a penny in imagined fuel costs). I’ve written about that before, too. It happens a lot. How can you call yourself a driving instructor if your pupils can’t drive in any car other than yours if they manage to scrape a pass?
A monkey could do this bloody job – and unfortunately, they often do. Even worse, they sometimes manage to do it for years, putting on a brilliant show for the periodic check test which doesn’t pick this sort of nonsense up.
Will the new Standards Check get these kind of people off the Register? I doubt it – but until it does, any grading system will remain meaningless.
The story has been picked up in certain corners of the media. This article says:
Becoming a driving instructor has become a popular way for people to boost their income in recent years, and the authority, formerly known as the DSA, is concerned that standards in tuition are slipping.
Although I agree with them, that isn’t what the DSA/DVSA is saying at all. It might be thinking it – but it isn’t saying it. The article also says:
Learner drivers are urged to check that their driving instructor is fully qualified, by looking for a green DVSA certificate, which should be displayed in their car’s windscreen. A pink certificate indicates that the instructor is a trainee who is gaining experience as part of the qualification process.
I can see where they are coming from, but they could have worded it better and less ambiguously. Although I never had a pink licence myself, the “pinkie” remains a common route to becoming a fully qualified ADI. It is wrong to denigrate it without some sort of clarification.
If someone is hiding their pink badge, or if they lie about their status, then you should definitely dump them and look elsewhere. However, people who are openly using the pink licence for its intended purpose (and who are not charging full lesson prices) should not be dismissed outright as potentially suitable instructors.
How often is the Standards Check carried out?
It’s supposed to be once in any 4-year period. However, if you get a poor result (i.e. if you fail a check) then you’ll be tested again much sooner than that.
The Standards Check was only introduced in April 2014, and it is too soon to say whether or not DVSA will adhere to this 4-year time period. With the old Check Test, if you believe what some people say, they weren’t tested for 6 or 7 years or more sometimes. Yet it was supposed to be done within similar time periods.
This is an old article, and I have edited it to my more recent style. I have not changed it, though.
IAM (the Institute of Advanced Motorists) is at it again. In poll it has commissioned, it reveals that “only 60% of drivers concentrate when they are behind the wheel”. The IAM chief executive comments:
Signs of not concentrating such as missed turnings or uncancelled (sic) indicator lights are commonplace. Simply not concentrating is a key cause of crashes yet it is not borne out in statistics because drivers rarely admit to it in police reports or on insurance forms.
What he’s saying is that out of a poll of 1,500 people – who are at liberty to lie as much as they want and will if it makes them look good – is more accurate than factual data. And the facts do not tally with the inane poll.
Everyone loses concentration occasionally, and if 60% of drivers claim they don’t then they are either liars, or they didn’t understand the question. IAM is muddying the waters with nonsense like this.
Knowing my two boys are that much safer on today’s dangerous roads is a huge reassurance. Lots of young people pass the DOT’s (sic) standard test by the skin of their teeth and go around thinking they’re fantastic drivers, so the fact James and Ben have the IAM certificate makes me feel 100 per cent better.
An IAM certificate does not make you a good driver. And it is suicidal to go around thinking that you are a good driver, especially if you lack experience.
It’s great that these two lads have a positive attitude about driving. But it is precisely that – their positive attitude – which their lack of experience could end up exploiting. An IAM certificate for these two lads is as worthless as the “DOT” one the mother deriding. Experience is the key, with caution while you are gaining it. Experience does not fall down like manna from heaven just by taking an IAM test. It is acquired over many years. This is indirectly confirmed by IAM:
[IAM] Group secretary Denara Holmes says it’s unusual for people younger than this to take the IAM test.
Yes, because it is pointless for them. It’s just a badge they can wear. Without experience, advanced assessments are a waste of time.
Advanced driving courses and certificates are not a panacea by a long mile. It becomes irritating that those who take them almost invariably end up decrying the normal driving test and, by implication, people like me who work bloody hard to teach people to drive.
In spite of what “Ben” (one of the boys involved) says, driving lessons do not “just teach you to pass the test”. They put you in a position to go out and safely gain experience, and that has always been the purpose of the driving test. It’s the first step on a lifelong learning curve – and you are not at the end of that curve merely because you did an IAM test!
Taking an IAM test and getting the official customised Zimmer frame as a reward may well be part of that learning curve for many, but the normal driving test is right at the front of it. You can’t do the IAM test before it and doing it just after is absolutely pointless – except to gain some sort of badge. Indeed, a lot of information is missing from this story, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least to discover that a Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme was involved somewhere.
Driving: The Essential Skills (TES) is the official DVSA guide to driving. Under the heading “Separation Distance”, it says the following:
The two-second rule
In good dry conditions an alert driver, who is driving a vehicle with first class tyres and brakes, needs to be at least two seconds behind the vehicle in front.
In bad conditions, double the safety gap to at least four seconds or even more.
The Highway Code (HC) says the following:
126
Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should
leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping Distances diagram, shown below)
allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front on roads carrying faster-moving traffic and in tunnels where visibility is reduced. The gap should be at least doubled on wet roads and increased still further on icy roads
You will note the use of the words “at least” and “or even more”. Neither publication (nor the DSA) is advising people to drive at precisely two seconds behind the driver in front all of the time.
On lessons, it is common for pupils to get too close to the vehicle in front at some stage of their training. It is also common for them – when asked how big a gap they should leave – to answer “two car lengths”. They do not mean that: it is just an answer with the number “two” in it, and if they actually thought about it (which some do) they would realise that two car lengths is a ridiculously short distance. The bottom line is that they have some vague recollection of the two-second rule, but not enough to recall it correctly.
As an aside, they also often give a nonsense answer when you ask them how far ahead they should be able to see before using their fog lights. Answers of “two metres” or “ten metres” are common (at which point I usually comment that I wouldn’t even walk outside, let alone drive, if visibility was that bad). They also commonly give nonsense answers to the tyre tread depth show-me-tell-me question based on a vague memory of having read it while studying for their Theory Test.
The simple fact is that the Theory Test is complementary to their lessons. It is the ADI’s job to help them apply the theory to the practicalities of being out on the road.
Instructors should be careful about making up their own rules about separation distances, especially if they don’t understand the topic as well as they think they do. Trying to leave too large a gap could easily lead to a candidate driving too slowly, and apart from the obvious problems this can cause in terms of the outcome of the test, it is guaranteed to encourage other drivers to overtake in frustration. TES and HC say you should leave “at least” two seconds in good weather. This does not automatically mean that ten or twenty seconds would be OK in free moving traffic (unless it is icy), because people would overtake and drop into the gap, and the learner would then have to slow down even more to open up the artificially large gap again. A “two-second rule” sized gap discourages all but the biggest arseholes (i.e. Audi drivers) from cutting in because the driver applying it is driving sensibly.
A confident and well-trained driver should be able to maintain a safe distance using the two-second rule without resorting to complicated additional rules. I stress again that when we say “two-second rule” it encompasses the principles of “at least” or “even more” mentioned in TES and the HC.
Measuring the gap is easy. As the car in front passes a sign, a lamp post, or some other feature, just say in a normal voice “only a fool breaks the two-second rule”. If you get to the sign or whatever before you finish saying it then you’re too close. And with a little driving experience under your belt you will know automatically if you’re too close without having to keep doing it.
Why is it measured in seconds and not car lengths?
Referring to overall stopping distances for a moment, if you have to brake suddenly the stopping distance varies depending on how fast you were travelling. At 20mph you can stop in about 12 metres, whereas at 70mph it will take 96 metres – or eight times further. In other words, it is a different number of car lengths for every single speed. Learners have enough trouble learning stopping distances as it is.
Leaving a gap of at least two seconds applies at any speed. It is much easier to apply than individual numbers of car lengths.
Why two seconds?
It’s only a rough rule. At 1mph, a car will be travelling 0.447 metres per second. Therefore, at 20mph it will cover about 18m in two seconds. At 30mph it’ll travel 27m, at 40mph nearly 36m, at 50mph about 45m, at 60mph about 54m, and at 70mph it’s about 62m.
These distances are not the same as stopping distances, and they aren’t supposed to be. Stopping distances are about stopping dead. The two-second rule is really aimed at giving the driver time to react to vehicles in front slowing down. It’s two separate – but related – things.
Does it have to be exactly two seconds?
No. Less than two seconds is dangerous and is almost guaranteed to get you a fail if you do it on your test. If you are closer than two seconds away from the car in front then you are what people refer to as a “tailgater”. But within reason, more than two seconds is fine.
Is it always two seconds?
No. TES and the HC both refer to doubling the gap in wet weather – so it becomes four seconds. Likewise, they mention that in icy weather it can take ten times the normal distance to stop (which seems vague, but skidding on ice is vague. Believe me).
There’s nothing wrong with a gap of, say, three seconds in good conditions. Four seconds is perhaps beginning to raise the question of adequate progress if traffic is flowing freely. Any more than that in free-moving traffic and other problems – such as people overtaking – becomes an issue. Just use common sense.
I sometimes wish parents would get it into their thick, money-grabbing skulls that you can’t just count on “getting lucky” and pass your driving test if you can’t drive, anymore than you can count of winning the lottery if you don’t buy a ticket!
I don’t think they realise what kind of rubbish parents it makes them by even hoping that little Jonny or Kylie might “get lucky” in the first place – especially because even if they did get lucky, they’d then stand a bloody good chance of getting “unlucky” and killing themselves (or someone else) once they got out alone and started showing off.
Two things got me thinking about this recently. The first was a call from an ex-pupil who’d passed her test in an automatic well over a year ago but who had not driven since. She was taking auto lessons for almost two years before eventually passing her test on her seventh attempt. However, before that she’d been with me doing manual lessons, also for two years, and she never got anywhere near test standard. Don’t get me wrong – I’d tried to get her to switch to auto much earlier on in her training, but she refused because she’d bought a manual car. She was simply incapable of reliably mastering the foot coordination needed to stop without stalling. It was only when I found out she’d sold her car some time later that both me and her son got on to her again and finally persuaded her to switch. But as I say, it still took her another two years and seven test attempts.
Flatteringly, she always credited me with getting her through her test. She was a really nice lady and we’ve always stayed in touch by telephone, and although I hadn’t heard from her for a year, she called me when she recently bought her own car and asked if I’d take her out to get used to it.
I have to admit that I was very nervous. To be fair, she was actually much better than I had expected, but there were still many traces of the old style. For example, as I got her to pull into her driveway at the end of that lesson she nearly ran into a fence as she hit the gas instead of the brake. She planned to drive to work that day, and I warned her to be careful. But when I called her the next day to see how it went it seems she had already scraped her gatepost. To make matters worse, she called me the next day to tell me she’d done it again – this time causing somewhat more damage to the car.
It’s a horrible position to be in. I have no control over her because she is a full licence holder, and yet if I did have any control I would have forbidden her to drive at all. Part of me wonders how she will ever be a safe driver – in spite of having taken over 200 hours of lessons and seven tests! I really feel sorry for her. But this leads me on to the second thing – the thing that I was referring to right at the start.
I’m usually quite fortunate when it comes to people wanting to take tests before they’re ready. First of all, I try to nip it in the bud as soon as it starts – sometimes even nipping it before it starts (it’s in my T&Cs). If they still won’t listen, then the bottom line is that they’re not going to test in my car, and whatever happens after that is up to them. A good illustration of this is a pupil I had not long ago (or his family, anyway). He was a nice lad, but very quiet. So quiet, in fact, that I am certain that there was some underlying issue, though “the family” insisted not – even though they followed him around, even on some of his lessons. He’d apparently had quite a few lessons with a previous instructor, but his dad reckoned he was being taken for a ride. When he came to me he had a test already booked, which I made them cancel after I’d seen him drive. He couldn’t possibly have passed.
The trouble was, the dad kept saying “I’d like him to have a go” (i.e. at the test). I made it clear that there was no way he was going in my car if he was not likely to pass. I always explain that I could lose my job if I send dangerous pupils to test – which is technically true, even if it’s somewhat exaggerated (as an aside, it’s nice when the examiner comments that it was a “nice drive” as they leave the car. It’s less nice when it is obvious the candidate shouldn’t have been there to start with. The examiner knows, and so do you).
So anyway, they reluctantly agreed to “move” the original test back by just over a month. I’d have preferred an indefinite cancel until I could see light at the end of the tunnel, but they were obviously just trying to keep the number of lessons to a minimum. In that extra time, the lad took just three 1 hour lessons (with several cancellations). He couldn’t do any of the manoeuvres correctly, nor were they getting better very quickly, and the pressure to get him to test standard with yet another idiotic test date looming was huge. To be honest, since he also just wanted to “have a go”, the pressure was much worse for me. I had also discovered since taking him on that in the case of reversing into a corner he strongly believed that when the kerb was coming towards him in the mirror then it was moving away in reality (honestly, he said exactly this), and it meant that every single time we did it he would repeatedly and determinedly steer the wrong way (or in random directions if he tried to think about it). With the test only weeks away, and a couple more hours of lessons at best, I couldn’t see how I’d be able to fix this and everything else in time.
The last straw came on his final lesson with me. I asked him to follow the road ahead at a large, very busy, light-controlled junction. As the lights changed we drove into it – and then did an emergency stop right in the middle as he suddenly decided he didn’t know where “straight ahead” was (I stress again that his test was literally a fortnight away). On that same lesson, on three separate occasions I asked him to turn right – either at lights or at junctions with filter lanes – and on every occasion he made no attempt to move the car into the appropriate lane, and would have turned right across other traffic. And no matter how many times we travelled the same road with speed limit changes from 20/30, 30/40, or back again, he would simply not see the signs at least once per lesson and I’d have to intervene. And finally, on that last session, we had a go at reversing into a corner and he just drove straight into the kerb (like he did on every previous lesson).
At that point I terminated the lesson and went to speak to his father. I told him that the lad simply wasn’t ready and that they should just cancel the test and not put him under such pressure. Yet again, the father repeated that he “just wanted him to have a go [at the test]” – at least the fourth time he had said it to me. Yet again, I made it clear that I was not taking him to test because he had no chance of passing as things were. My argument about unfair pressure on the lad was totally lost on this guy. I never heard from them again, and my blood runs cold at what could happen to this obviously vulnerable young man if he goes to test or – worse – if he passes too soon and is as unpredictable on the road as the lady I mentioned above.
What makes it particularly annoying is that my aim is to get pupils to test standard quickly and efficiently. I’m fully aware that learning to drive is expensive, so I push them hard to get them up to a safe standard. If I ever thought I was milking people for money then I’d give the job up instantly – my moral code is better than that. And yet with some people this just will not sink in. The guy in question only wanted his son – a young man who obviously had problems – to take a test that I knew he had no chance of passing on the off chance he’d pass, with no regard for what might happen to him if he did. And God knows what stories they’ll be telling their next instructor about me.
One thing is certain, though. I’ll sleep easier now. I wonder if the young lad’s father will? Unfortunately, he is completely clueless about the matter, so I doubt that it will affect him.
I originally wrote this back in 2013, but it has become popular recently (late 2022).
Someone found the blog on the term “I just passed my ADI part 3 and don’t know what to do next”.
It’s also a common question on the forums, alongside “should I become an ADI? – which I explain in great detail here. The stock answer from the illuminati is that you shouldn’t do it, quickly followed by various diatribes about franchises, how you should strike out on your own and not pay any money to anyone else for either your training or your workload. But you don’t want to hear that, nor should you have to – you’ve passed your Part 3 and you want to know how to move forward.
Let’s get a few things straight. People have failed at this job since the dawn of time. That’s because if you can’t get the work (i.e. turnover) then you’ll simply go under. That was as true 20 or 30 years ago as it is now. The only thing that’s different is that it is perhaps a little harder to get the work these days – not only because there are more ADIs around (though this is less of a problem than the illuminati would have everyone think), but also because those that are already doing the job are offering silly prices, and also that many new learners tend to go for established, recommended, or easily found instructors or schools.
Running any business is very straightforward. All you need is a) products to sell, and b) customers who want to buy them. It’s no different running a driving school – by passing Part 3 you have your product, but the trick now is finding customers to sell it to.
The information you get from forums (superseded by social media nowadays) is highly misleading. That’s because few ADIs will ever be open and honest about how difficult it was to get started, or how difficult it is to remain in business. Most haven’t got a clue how well they are actually doing at it, even when they’re doing badly. Over the years I’ve watched many of them claim to be setting the world on fire, only to watch them go through not having enough work, having too little work, thinking of becoming bus drivers, and finally… becoming bus drivers! And yet those same people will still advise you to do what they did and start out completely independent, even though it clearly hasn’t worked for them.
They’ll claim to have gone independent from the moment they passed Part 3 (which in some cases is a plain lie), got a full diary within weeks (which is usually a massive exaggeration), and say they have a “waiting list” of several months (which is just nonsense, because if someone wants to start taking lessons they aren’t going to hang around until you become free). Even if there were ADIs who genuinely did do all that they claim in the timeframe they mention (and in the here and now – not 30 years ago), the simple truth is that for 99.9% of all other ADIs it was harder and took much longer.
A lot of people ask me for advice, and this is what I tell them.
Go for it!
You passed your Part 3 after spending all that money on training. Now go and make a success out of it – because it IS possible.
Know your financial targets
No rocket science here. Know how much you need to earn (as distinct from how much you’d like to earn), and work from there. Don’t plan on getting a full diary from Day One – you’ll only end up disappointed. Success is about making a living and not about working 60 hours a week. Of course, if you do get a full diary and end up working 60 hours a week, treat it as a huge bonus.
Check local AA lesson prices
Being a national school, the AA’s prices are a useful barometer. If the standard hourly rate for your area is £28 or more then you are likely to be able to get work. If the AA rate is less than that then you may have more difficulty finding work and will have to allow a little extra time for your plan to dominate the world.
Franchise or independent?
If you need to pay bills you would have to be insane to rule out joining a franchise – at least in the beginning. If you can generate all your own work, being independent is easily the cheapest option. However, all those failed and struggling ADIs out there thought that they could generate the work, too. It isn’t that easy.
How do I advertise myself?
One way or another it will cost you. It’ll cost you time, and it will cost you money. Unless you have plenty of both to spare, a franchisor will be able to spend the money more effectively and will likely be able to obtain a better return on the investment than you could achieve on your own. You can use your time on a franchise to improve your reputation and brand image, and then cut the apron strings when you think you’re ready. That might take anything up to several years – but at least you’ll be growing your business.
So I can do that myself, right?
In theory, yes you can. But as I have already pointed out, the job market is full of failed ADIs who were absolutely convinced that they – for the first time in recorded history – would do something no other ADI has ever managed (though many have attempted), and corner the entire market whilst simultaneously sending all franchises to hell. Honestly, just about every new ADI thinks in terms of hanging on to all that lovely money from their pupils. That’s why you’re asking this question in the first place, because a little voice inside your head is advising you to pocket every penny without any consideration for how you will actually get those pennies. You can spend hundreds – even thousands – of pounds on advertising and get absolutely no work out of it as a result. If you can afford to gamble with failure like that, by all means go ahead – but you have been warned.
Big franchise or little franchise?
Ultimately, getting work all comes down to advertising. Even the smallest of local franchises will probably be able to advertise more effectively than a solo ADI could. As the size of the school increases, the amount they spend also increases – but so does the return on that spend. The large national and semi-national schools can produce hard-hitting campaigns which attract a lot of interest.
Are there any guarantees?
Absolutely not. A franchisor cannot guarantee work anymore than a solo ADI can guarantee it. However, it is fair to say that if a large franchisor is having difficulties, anyone trying to operate independently in the same area will likely be having it worse. So conversely, in a more realistic climate where there is work to be had, the franchisor will probably have more success getting it than the average solo instructor.
Undercutting gets me more work, right?
In theory, yes. In practice, no – and it also reduces your profits. You see, it’s all very well knocking a few pennies off the lesson rate and playing the supermarket game of labelling things at £29.95 instead of £30, but what happens when everyone is doing it and you have to drop down to maybe £23.95 in order to distinguish your product? Because then you’ll be earning up to £7 less for each lesson, and since you’ll have done it in the first place because you’re not getting enough hours in, you’ll have cut your turnover by around 25%. And I can assure you that any work you do attract will not offset that lost income. At best, you’ll simply end up doing more work for less money. Go down this path and you’re well on the road to ruin.
But don’t pupils want cheap lessons?
Oh yes. People would like cheap everything – until they actually get it, and then they realise that below a certain threshold you get exactly what you pay for. You see, the going rate for lessons which provide value for money for all those concerned IS around £30 per hour. At that price, the instructor can deliver a good lesson. As soon as you start chipping away at that the first thing to suffer is the instructor’s income. In order to rectify that – and in the face of probably still not getting enough new work to counteract the reduced prices – the instructor has to reduce his business overheads, and the largest overhead (apart from the car) is undoubtedly fuel costs.
What’s in a name?
Cutting fuel costs means doing less driving, and that means slower learning. And since pupils aren’t stupid, many will twig early on that they’re being held back – perhaps not deliberately, but still held back – and start looking for another instructor. This time around they’ll think twice about going for a cheap one and opt for a larger local or national school. And many first-time learners think like that right from the start and choose a big name – often on the strength of mum or dad’s advice. So there is quite a lot in a name.
Is it worth it?
If you put the hours in and can afford to be patient, yes. Definitely. But you aren’t going to get very far if this is going to be your main source of income and you are planning to do every school run for your own kids, or not work evenings or weekends, and so on. Even when you’re busy, maybe doing 30-40 hours a week, work can drop to below 20-25 hours the next week just like that due to test passes or cancellations. It can then take anything from days to months to creep back up again – it depends on all sorts of factors that are totally beyond your control. It’s the price you pay for being self-employed.
But how much can I earn?
The sums are quite simple, and depend on how many hours of lessons you can deliver. Let’s assume that it will cost you £100 a week just to keep a car on your driveway (and it WILL cost about that for a half decent car, no matter what the illuminati try and tell you).
If you do a fixed 20 hours of lessons at £30 an hour you will turn over £600, less the cost of the car and about £130 for fuel. That will earn you about £18,000 a year before tax.
You can pro rata that calculation for any number of worked hours as long as you increase the fuel allowance accordingly.
However, there is no way you can just dial up your working hours – you might get 40 one week, then 20 for the next couple of months. and dial up a salary like that. As I have already said, you could have 40 hours one week (I’ve had over 50 hours a few times), and then see it fall to less than 25 hours for reasons totally out of your control the next. Once you’re established, you will probably average about 30 hours per week in a typical year.
Franchise costs vary. In some cases, you provide your own car and then pay the franchisor to have their livery and advertising work done for you. In others, you pay a franchisor to supply a car and everything else apart from the fuel. If you took out a franchise with a big school like the AA, you’d be paying up to £200 a week for the car, so that annual before-tax wage for 20 hours would be about £14,000.
Don’t look down your nose at franchises! I’ve tried to make it clear that the theoretical £19,000 for 20 hours depends on everything working perfectly. The chances are you wouldn’t get anywhere near as many hours by yourself when you first qualify are remote, so £14,000 is not to be sniffed at.
The bottom line
Consider starting out on a franchise until you learn the ropes. Don’t dismiss the option outright, otherwise you may not be in the game in a year’s time (just like the people who are advising you to go solo now). Once you can let go, do it. But only go independent when you’re certain you can stand on your own feet. Do it too soon and you’ll likely end up throwing all the hard work involved in getting your badge down the drain.
This article from the BBC suggests that the long-held belief that women are better than men at multitasking was a “myth”. But it goes on to report that new research has shown that it’s true after all: women are better at it – in some things, at least..
It’s funny, but I have never regarded it as a myth. I have always told my pupils that women are generally better than men at multitasking – but I’ve then explained precisely what is meant by “multitasking”, because that’s where the real confusion lies. The conversation usually comes about early on, perhaps when learning how to coordinate the pedals, or maybe when trying a manoeuvre like the turn in the road for the first time.
When you ask a pupil about multitasking, they’ve all heard of it, and they all know about the men vs. women thing. But almost all of them associate it with doing two or more things at the same time, and that’s definitely not what it is. You see, when they try a turn in the road for the first time they will often try to control the speed of the car and steer at the same time – with the net result that neither operation is completed properly. Or when it comes to stopping near the kerb they’ll be trying to steer, and brake, and watch the kerb all at the same time (incidentally, this is where hitting the gas pedal by mistake is most likely to occur) – again, none of these sub-tasks gets completed properly
The problem lies in the fact that no one can do two or more separate things simultaneously – that is, at exactly the same time. What they can do, however, is quickly switch between the individual sub-tasks which make up each overall task. So both tasks get completed by doing a bit of one, then a bit of the other, then the next bit of the first one… and so on. And it is here where women are generally – though not always – more adept than men. It’s also one reason why men and women can become frustrated with each other, when the man focuses on one task or conversation, whereas the woman jumps between them.
You can’t pigeonhole human behaviour as easily as all this, though – and definitely not when it comes to driving. In terms of spatial awareness, for example, men generally have the edge. Women generally have the edge when it comes to not having over-inflated egos, though. Every difference between the sexes is just a generality, and when you add them all up everything gets smoothed out and there’s not that much difference. However, as I mentioned in the Tears of a Clown article, some people have emotional jokers up their sleeves which often reinforces the stereotypical views.
anymore than you can count of winning the lottery if you don’t buy a ticket!
car and asked if I’d take her out to get used to it.
(with several cancellations). He couldn’t do any of the manoeuvres correctly, nor were they getting better very quickly, and the pressure to get him to test standard with yet another idiotic test date looming was huge. To be honest, since he also just wanted to “have a go”, the pressure was much worse for me. I had also discovered since taking him on that in the case of reversing into a corner he strongly believed that when the kerb was coming towards him in the mirror then it was moving away in reality (honestly, he said exactly this), and it meant that every single time we did it he would repeatedly and determinedly steer the wrong way (or in random directions if he tried to think about it). With the test only weeks away, and a couple more hours of lessons at best, I couldn’t see how I’d be able to fix this and everything else in time.
It’s funny, but I have never regarded it as a myth. I have always told my pupils that women are generally better than men at multitasking – but I’ve then explained precisely what is meant by “multitasking”, because that’s where the real confusion lies. The conversation usually comes about early on, perhaps when learning how to coordinate the pedals, or maybe when trying a manoeuvre like the turn in the road for the first time.