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.
If you get caught now, it’s 6 points on your licence and a £200 fine. New drivers – those who passed their tests less than 2 years ago – should bear in mind that the points will put them at the limit provided during the probationary period. In theory – and, hopefully, in reality – that means you’re banned.
DVSA’s photo used in the news release carries the words “make the glove compartment the phone compartment”. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen – the typical 17-year old can only put their phone in one of two places: in their hand, or between their legs. Well over half of my new pupils try that at first, and I know for a fact that however much I emphasise the dangers and penalties, when they pass they’re going to do it. I also know that they will use their phone while they’re driving – it is a condition of 17-year olds today.
I fully agree with higher penalties. The only form of education which stands any chance of working is one which carries a significant punishment with it.
Over the last week or so I’ve noticed the sudden appearance in my stats of visits to the blog using the search term “applied coach approach”. Until the first one last week no one has EVER used that term before, now it is appearing multiple times per day.
I should also point out that – so far – I have not been spammed with it, but after a quick search it would appear that the DIA is selling a coaching course with this title, costing a little under £100. Better still, as well as being a standalone course, it apparently “builds on” the original Coach Approach course, which no doubt also cost somewhere around £100. I bet there are some dipsticks out there who have done both, as well.
You know what they say about a fool and his money.
Coaching is coaching. Once you’ve done one course and are using the techniques as necessary, unless it turns out that you’re desperately crap at it, any further courses only benefit those who are pocketing your cash. Incidentally, the coaching clip art I found for this article struck me as being very appropriate. It looks like someone trying to coach someone else up on to a toilet seat.
I was on a lesson with a pupil today and I asked her how she was getting on studying for her theory test. I asked her to identify a pedestrian crossing we had just passed, and it was clear she was a little confused. Next time we stopped, I got my sketch pad out and went through the different types to show her how understanding them made answering theory test questions much easier than just trying to remember the answers.
We talked about Pelicans, Puffins, and Toucans. I mentioned how they’re named after various birds, but that in spite of people trying to make the connection, Zebra Crossings are much older and are named after Zebras and not Zebra Finches. That brought us to Equestrian Crossings, which I mentioned using the common name of “Pegasus Crossing”.
Who do you think would use a Pegasus Crossing?
I don’t know.
Think about it. What was a Pegasus?
A flying horse.
Good, and half of that might explain who uses them. Who might that be?
Flying cars.
My ribs are still hurting now. She realised immediately, but – at the time – she meant it.
Edit: Incidentally, she was one of the best drivers I’ve had, and a very pleasant pupil. She passed first time in May, having started in January with no previous experience.
I picked a pupil up for a lesson tonight from his house. He’d already asked if we could finish at his girlfriend’s place over in Cotgrave, which I had no problem with. Well, I say that, but I did have some small reservations, which grew as the lesson went on.
I enjoy this job immensely, but there are two particular things which I have to admit I have nightmares about. One is to do with steering. I’ve been teaching for long enough to know that pupils can do things you’d think that no sane person would ever do. For example, a few months ago a girl who was a bit unpredictable behind the wheel in the first place was steering almost full-lock around a tight mini-roundabout to turn right when the ball on her nose ring (which she fiddles with incessantly) fell off at the precise moment she needed to steer left into the exit road. Who would ever have thought that a rational human being would instantly decide to let go of the steering wheel with both hands and plunge head-first into the foot well to try and catch the ball before it hit the floor in this situation? And in another example some years ago, a pupil was driving at 50mph down a long, straight, well-lit 60mph road, with other cars visible several hundred metres in front of us doing the same, when he suddenly decided we needed to make a 90° turn to the left. There was no left turn there anyway (not even anything resembling one), and even if there had been we couldn’t possibly have managed it at that speed, and nor should we have attempted to do so. He could never explain why he had tried (I remember his exact words: “I honestly don’t know why I did that”).
The second thing that gives me the heebie jeebies is when a pupil asks to be dropped off somewhere different to the pick up, and before I’ve had time to look it up. This is made worse when I attempt to identify the location with them and they can’t tell me anything other than “I know the way”. Those four simple words convey an absolute encyclopaedia of possible meanings, such as:
I’ve only been once
I was asleep on the back seat at the time
And I was only four
My mum (or dad) normally drives
My mum (or dad) think they might have once heard of something called The Highway Code
My mum (or dad) think that they once passed their driving test, but now they can’t remember
I usually walk there
I usually ride my bike there
I’m aged 17-25 and beyond the end of my road (less if it’s a long road) I get lost
I got lost the last two times I came here on my own
I usually catch the bus
Young drivers are often so poor at navigation that they think 5cm on a map “isn’t very far” – even though they’re looking at a World projection printed on A4. With a big border. And cornering on two wheels with no signals (just like mum or dad) comes naturally. With all of this in mind, the conversation at the start of today’s lesson went something like this:
Where in Cotgrave do you need to be?
I know the way
Yes, but I don’t. What road does she live on?
Ummm.
[Groan] You don’t know the name of the road?
But I know the way
At this point, I jokingly explain much of what I’ve written above.
I don’t know how you “usually” get to Cotgrave, and there’s more than one way. Where is she near?
Ummm.
Is she near Ring Leas?
[A light seems to come on] Umm, I think.. ummm.
OK, we’ll head for Ring Leas and you can tell me where you’re going from there
It’s near Sainsbury’s
[I pause for a moment] But Ring Leas is nowhere near Sainsbury’s
I’ll know it when I see it
Yes, but I want to get there alive. We’ll head for Sainsbury’s then
We carry out the bulk of the lesson. Once we’ve done it, we strike out for Cotgrave along the A606 Melton Road. Just after the Wheatcroft Roundabout the conversation proceeds:
I normally take the next turn left
I know how to get to Cotgrave, just concentrate and you can tell me where you think you want to go later
I assumed that he meant he’d normally drive down Tollerton Lane (which is actually the fourth left from where we were), even though that would be a pointlessly longer way to get to Cotgrave. As we turned into Cotgrave Road (fifth left):
Yes, this is the way we come
But this isn’t “next left” like [I decide not to pursue it]… now concentrate on the road, it’s dark and narrow [and it’s snowing now]
As we approach Cotgrave:
It’s left at the Church
But Sainsbury’s is on the right
No, it’s this next road [pointing right at Mensing Avenue]
But the Church is a bit further down, and Sainsbury’s is on the right at the end of this road
No, there’s one here [Scrimshire Lane, second left, and on the right]
That’s the graveyard, the Church is on the left down there, and you said it was on the left. But this is the road she lives on, yes?
Ummm. Yes. I meant on the right.
[We turn into Scrimshire] Where does she live?
On the left just here [points]
What, down here? [Cherry Orchard]
No, down here [points left again]… where that car’s going [actually, into someone’s driveway]
You mean Ring Leas, then [which is just past it]?
Ummm.
So it’s down here? [I point at Ring Leas as we approach it]
No, it’s down here on the left
Several possible left turns later, we finally arrive – albeit about 1km beyond the point where our destination was “just here on the left” the first time.
Promise me you’ll buy a sat nav as soon as you pass.
I knew where it was
No you bloody didn’t. Not one of your directions was correct, and what do you think you would have done if you’d been driving on your own? You’d have taken that first turn back on the A606 and ended up in West Bridgford if you were lucky. Then you said it was “near Sainsbury’s” – it’s nowhere near.
It is
Sainsbury’s is over a mile away. Have you any idea how difficult it is to find an address when you don’t know a road name or house number, and are searching in a one-mile radius based only on visual recognition – in the dark? Your idea of this house being “near Sainsbury’s” is like saying “Nottingham is near Derby”. In global terms it is, but not if you’ve got to walk it wearing a blindfold!
Society is doomed, I tells ya!
And this is why I sometimes have those recurring nightmares.
This month’s Intelligent Instructor magazine talks of the “reaction” to government proposals to allow learners on to the motorways. Just for the record, I – as an objective and… well, I won’t say ‘intelligent’, but let’s just say ‘more so than plankton’ observer – think it is a good and long overdue change (if it happens).
Ingenie is a an insurance company for young drivers. Statistically, it’s users seem to be about 75% female. So opinions by its members are therefore predominantly those of young, recently-passed females. And you have nonsense such as this:
Stupid idea it’s bad enough on the roads but on a fast moving motorway it’s ridiculous dual controls or not. I’ve seen some shocking and dangerous moves from learners which instructors should have taken control of but they don’t. Lorraine
As a driver I do not think it’s a good idea. Motorways are dangerous, high speed areas and definitely not suitable for learners. Paulina
Like there’s not enough accidents on motorways as it is without the added ‘mistakes’ from learners. Don’t get me wrong, we all have to start somewhere but jeez, bad call. Megan
The ink is still wet on these people’s licences, so anything they say should be taken with a pinch… no, wait. Anything they say should be completely ignored. They probably voted for Brexit, for God’s sake, and then had to look up what ‘Europe’ meant.
The only real danger on motorways is from Audi and BMW drivers, and from people like Lorraine, Megan, and Paulina, who seem to have a girly fit over the whole issue whenever it crops up. Motorways themselves do not have any intrinsic danger associated with them – all they are is fairly straight 70mph roads with blue signs instead of green or white ones. The fact that learners have never been allowed on them means that a mystique has grown up around them, which people like Lorraine, Megan, and Paulina easily latch on to. More dangerous, by far, are rural roads, with lots of twists and turns which makes them intrinsically dangerous. This danger is exacerbated by the same Audis and BMWs which create problems wherever they drive, and by the inexperienced Lorraines, Megans, and Paulinas of this world (especially if, as some do, they aspire to such behaviour themselves).
It’s very telling that ‘Lorraine’ thinks she’s perfect, and that all learners are not, and I can just imagine her reaction if she is driving behind one (she’s just pretty much said it herself). Both Megan and Paulina are extremely misinformed people – so badly misinformed that you wonder how they got licences in the first place.
The bottom line is that driving instructors should be able to teach learners on every type of road they will drive on once they pass their tests. Having motorways out of the equation for reasons lost in the mists of time is just bloody stupid, and the only real problem here is that some ADIs wouldn’t go near a motorway purely for their own selfish reasons (i.e. saving money on fuel). Come to think of it, some of those ADIs don’t take their pupils on rural roads for similar reasons, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if I found out that ‘perfect’ Lorraine and her buddies weren’t taught on those, either.
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.
I covered this years ago when the blog was still young! It was around the time of the last big rush of people wanting to become driving instructors. You might also want to take a look at my longer article, Should I Become a Driving Instructor?
More recently, I pointed out that the current climate is ideal for new ADIs because there’s a lot of work around. However, being metaphorical about it for a moment, a summer is always followed by a winter. Brexit is effectively the autumn which will develop into a nuclear winter – one that’s likely to take hold within the next couple of years, and which will last for an entire generation or even longer.
But I digress. Someone found the blog today with the search term “how long does it take to get adi badge [sic]”. Maybe I shouldn’t read between the lines, but whoever asked that seems to be thinking about it all wrong. It comes across as being purely about getting money, not least because someone who is serious about becoming an ADI would already have an idea of what is involved.
You need to pass three exams to become an ADI: a theory test (Part 1), a test of your driving ability (Part 2), and a test of your teaching ability (Part 3). Putting aside the work involved to pass them, you could book a theory test for some time in the next few weeks. Then you’d be free to book the Part 2 test, which could be a few weeks later. Finally, you’d be free to book the Part 3, which could be a few weeks after that. In an ideal world, you could pass all three parts within a couple of months.
In reality, though, the waiting time for the Part 2 and Part 3 tests is likely to be anything up to 2-3 months depending on where you live (in some places it may be more). So realistically, even if you pass each one at your first attempt – and you can’t book the next stage until you’ve passed the previous one – you’d need about 6-7 months just to fit them all in.
The last time I looked, the pass rate even for Part 1 was shockingly low at around 50%. Part 2 was also around 50%, and Part 3 was around 35%. You can only have a maximum of three attempts at either Part 2 or Part 3 within two years of passing Part 1, otherwise you have to go through all three parts again once the two years are up. I’ve gone through this calculation before, but if 100 people start out intending to become ADIs, using these pass rate figures as a worst case, only 50 of them will go on to take Part 2, only 25 will take Part 3, and ultimately only 9 out of the original 100 will succeed in getting their green badge. I stress that this is a worst case scenario, but it isn’t that far off the reality. Becoming an ADI is not an easy ride.
Those who are successful are unlikely to pass all three tests first time. They might, of course, but most don’t. If the wait for Parts 2 and 3 tests in your area is 3 months, each additional attempt will add a further three months to your overall qualifying period. Even if someone passes Part 1 (which can be taken an unlimited number of times), if they end up having three attempts at both Parts 2 and 3 (which is not uncommon) then the overall qualification period will be over 18 months absolute minimum. If they fail three times within the two year window, they have to wait until the window closes before doing the whole thing all over again.
Those pass rates are the result of a combination of the ability of people taking the tests and the difficulty of the tests per se. The fact that they’re so low should be a strong indication of how much work is involved getting up to test standard, and also of the risks any prospective ADI is taking in choosing to embark on training where there is potentially a greater than 90% chance of failure.
That risk needs to be considered when you look at how much it is going to cost you to qualify. At the time of writing, the Part 1 test costs £81, and Parts 2 and 3 cost £111 each. Every new prospective ADI assumes that they will only take one attempt at each test and end up paying £300 to qualify – even though the statistics strongly suggest otherwise. One attempt at Part 1, and a more realistic three attempts at each of the others would end up costing about £750. Most people will end up spending closer to this for their tests than the lower figure. But this is just the cost of the testing, remember, and you’re going to need at least 40 hours of Part 3 training (likely to be charged at £30-£35 per hour, possibly more) and let’s say 10 hours for Part 2 (ditto). That adds up to around £1,700 for training on top of test fees, and even this is a bare minimum. Assuming you can pass without much training is fine when you’re signing along the dotted line to apply to be entered on to the register, but once your test is looming most people suddenly realise their naiveté and end up postponing it or wasting one of their three lives. Either way, they have to pay for more training.
It’s impossible to say definitely how much money you’ll end up spending – you may be one in a milion who literally does it for £300 – but the vast majority will end up risking several thousand pounds on something with a high risk of failure. It’ll take at least 6 months to pass, but probably up to a couple of years. And if you fail, the money and time are both gone – there are no refunds.
Your problems don’t end there, though. If you qualify, you’re going to have to get a car, insurance, and dual controls. If you were the one who asked the question I quoted earlier, then there’s a good chance that you’re the kind of person who is going to want to do everything on the cheap, so you won’t be on the road teaching the next day while you squirrel away trying to get a car. Furthermore, passing Part 3 doesn’t come with a full diary of pupils – when you decided to become an ADI you probably thought “Oooh! £25 times 40 hours equals money, money, money,” and no further than that. Now, and if you’re lucky, a couple of relatives or friends will have asked you to teach their kids. Assuming you’re not ‘doing someone a favour’ (let’s be honest: they probably expect it, and so you probably are), these will be worth about £1,800 in turnover over four months. I can almost see the spinning reels of £ signs in your eyes, but this money will have to cover your overheads, so you’ll be left with maybe £1,100 before tax (and scaling it up, it works out to an annual salary of well under £300 – yes, three hundred). So, you’re going to need tons more work – you need something like 30 hours a week to earn a living wage.
You may have gained an Oscar Nomination from your family for passing Part 3, but the rest of the world doesn’t give a damn. They’ve got hundreds of other ADIs to choose from, and they’re not going to be queuing outside your house. You’re going to have to build up slowly – certainly more slowly than your initial plan might have allowed for. It could take 6 months to two years to get a stable pupil base, and even then you will have to keep working at it otherwise it could all disappear almost overnight. One way or another, that’s going to cost money (or time, which in business is still money anyway). And a huge number of people fail miserably on this business side of the matter.
In summary, it could take two years to qualify, and a further two years to establish yourself. You might do it quicker, but you’d be crazy to assume that and risk capital on it. Far more likely is that you might not qualify at all, and even if you did you might still fail in business. You must allow for that. And if you’re just going to be doing it for the money you think you can earn, do yourself a favour and forget about it right now.
One fairly common reason people fail their driving tests is because they don’t use bus lanes properly. Unfortunately, a contributing factor is that very few so-called ‘experienced’ drivers know how to use them, either. And to make matters worse, the people who work for local councils and the contractors who produce bus lane signs also appear clueless.
Bus lane signs don’t always look exactly like the ones shown in the Highway Code. They’re very similar, but there is some variation. The Highway Code identifies simple bus lanes using signs similar to those shown above. The one on the left refers to what is known as a ‘24-hour bus lane’, and you are not allowed to drive in it as if it were a normal lane at any time (I’ll discuss this further a little later). The one on the right gives days and times during which the lane is in operation as a bus lane, and outside those times you can treat it as a normal driving lane.
The first thing to understand is that the type of bus lane and its times of operation are set by local councils. The times I’ve used above are typical of most Nottingham bus lanes, though Rushcliffe Borough Council has recently chucked a spanner in the works by altering one in West Bridgford to operate between 3.30 – 6.00pm (a change that I doubt most drivers will be aware of, because I only realised it when I looked at the sign one day). Operating times are different in other cities, and it is up to the driver to check. A 24-hour bus lane may or may not be usable by taxis (in Nottingham, wheelchair-accessible taxis can use city centre bus lanes, but they’re not allowed in borough ones). The appropriate icons or wording are added to or removed from signs as necessary.
Nottingham City Council has managed the following further – needless – variations on a 500m stretch of road for one particular 24-hour bus lane.
That one on the right is my favourite, because it is demonstrates a case of ‘we don’t know which sign to use, so we’ll use both of them’. The fact that each subsequent sign set is not the same as the previous one creates a hundred times more confusion for normal drivers, since the obvious implication is that something is different. It isn’t. But when the bus lane becomes time-controlled about a mile further on, everyone keeps out of it just to be on the safe side. The one on the left is extremely confusing if you’re already unsure, because it begs the question ‘does it mean I can use it at any time?’
Basically, there should be four simple variations for a normal bus lane. When approaching a 24-hour one the sign shown top left should be used. A variation of that with operating times underneath would warn of one you could use it at certain times. The one shown top right would warn that the lane you’re driving alongside has operating times, and the corresponding variation (the bottom add-on on the above right pairing used by Nottingham City Council) would tell you it was 24-hour.
Of course, the Highway Code shows several more complex situations, involving with-flow and contraflow lanes, and depending on where you live you may see these more often. But the basic principle is that if there are no hours of operation shown, you can’t go in it at any time. If times are shown, those are the times when it is a bus lane and you’re not allowed in.
Can you drive in a 24-hour bus lane at any time?
For normal driving, no. If you do, you’re likely to get a penalty charge notice (PCN) from the council if a camera sees you – and remember that buses have cameras fitted these days.
However – and you still need to be very careful here, because the attitude varies from council to council – in some places you may be allowed to dip into them to pass vehicles waiting to turn right. It would be stupid and petty if you were expected to remain behind a right-turner, leading to long tailbacks, but some councils really are stupid and petty (London springs to mind here), so be careful.
…the Authorised Officer will have noted issues such as the following before considering the issue of a PCN:
The bus lane is clearly marked and operational and the incident occurred more than 5 minutes after the restrictions started and more than 5 minutes before they ended
There is no evidence that the vehicle has stopped to pick up or set down a passenger. If setting down a passenger the vehicle must have made every effort to move out of the bus lane as soon as it was safe to do so
There is no evidence of action by a Police Officer or an On-Street Civil Enforcement Officer
The vehicle’s actions in the bus lane were not merely clipping the start or end of the bus lane but if the vehicle entered the bus lane it proceeds for more than 20 metres (approx 4 continuous car lengths) after so entering
At least a significant part of the vehicle infringed the bus lane restriction i.e. more than 50% of the vehicle’s width
If the vehicle used the bus lane to gain advantage over traffic using the correct lane.
When a vehicle is observed to undertake a vehicle turning right into a side road, by using a bus lane during its time of operation, the Council will treat each case on its merits and try to adopt a common-sense approach. The driver of such a manoeuvre should ensure that the route back out of the bus lane is clear before undertaking. In most cases the discretionary 20 metres distance will not be exceeded.
Note that these comments apply equally to a non-24 hour bus lane during its operational period. So, in Nottingham at least, you can pass someone turning right by dipping into and then out of a bus lane which is in operation at the time. Obviously, you should check that it’s safe and that there are no buses (or other drivers) on your left before doing so.
Why do people stay out of bus lanes even when they could go in them?
If the bus lane isn’t in operation, the reason other drivers stay out of them is usually because they don’t understand how to use them and are playing it safe. It isn’t uncommon to see a huge tailback at traffic lights, even though the bus lane is usable as a driving lane.
When I’m driving – either on my own or with a pupil – it is funny how a bus lane can be completely empty in the visible distance, and it is only when we enter it that other drivers do so, often right in front of us just to prevent us passing them as they move slowly in the queue they’ve helped create. Quite simply, not using bus lanes correctly is dangerous for this reason alone.
Why is it dangerous if I don’t go in a bus lane when I’m allowed to?
If you’re going to want the left hand lane you’ll probably end up having to move into it when it has filled up with other traffic. That causes hold ups and the potential for accidents.
Remember also that other drivers tend to err on the side of being arseholes, and although you will find that you being in the bus lane will make some of them try to get past you at all costs, in most cases that is better than the equivalent situation of those same arseholes trying not to let you into the left-hand lane when you need to get in at the end of the bus lane.
Use the bus lane properly and you have less to worry about.
Will I fail my test if I don’t use the bus lane?
If the bus lane is not in operation, and therefore a normal lane, then yes, there is a good chance you will fail. The simple fact is that if you drive for any lengthy distance in the right-hand lane when the bus lane is not in operation – and it is empty/free of obstacles – then you are driving in the wrong lane. And people do fail for doing that, whether it’s a bus lane or not.
Some examiners might let you get away with it, but that would depend on how far you drive, how many signs you pass, and what effect you have on other road users and how they react. However, if you try to turn left across a bus lane when you could (and should) have been driving in it, then a fail is virtually guaranteed from my own pupils’ experience.
Yes, if you only didn’t use the bus lane for a relatively short distance, and if you did all the safety observations before turning across it, and if you didn’t cause any hold ups to traffic (or buses) in it, then it is possible the examiner might let you get away with it. They shouldn’t, but they might.
It’s best if you use them like you know what you’re doing, though. Then it isn’t a matter of chance.
What if I don’t know the area?
Look. If I travel to a city I have not been to before, if I drive in a bus lane when I shouldn’t then I will still get a ticket. Likewise, if I drive to a city I don’t know, by not using a bus lane when I should there is an increased chance of having a collision if I need to turn left. The same goes for other rules of the road. It’s why we have road signs and The Highway Code.
It is my responsibility to know when to use the bus lane and when not to. A learner taking their test is no different. The only difference is that I use bus lanes because I know how they work, and not because I am copying what others are doing. And that’s what my learners need to know.
If in doubt, stay out – but look for the signs and alter your behaviour accordingly.
I noticed that the subject of Box Junctions was being over-complicated and obfuscated on a web forum recently.
Rule 174 of the Highway Code says:
Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see ‘Road markings’). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right.
It seems odd to me that there should suddenly be a problem with this, given that it has been worded pretty much the same way for the last 30 years or more (box junctions have been around since the late 60s).
The bottom line is that – and it has always been clearly understood that this is what it meant – if you are travelling straight on, you will be committing an offence if you (or any part of your vehicle) stop inside the area marked with the yellow lines. If you are moving slowly in traffic, it is up to you to decide if you should enter the boxed area and run the risk of having to stop in it if the traffic comes to a standstill, hence the Highway Code wording about your exit road or lane being clear. If you keep moving and manage to clear it then you have not committed any offence – though you might have taken a bit of a gamble. Technically, your exit road or lane IS clear if you get it right, whether by good judgement or good luck. It doesn’t matter how slowly you are travelling – if you clear the boxed area you have not done anything wrong.
The Highway Code DOES NOT say it is an offence to enter the box junction if someone else is already passing through it. If that was how you had to use them, there’d be gridlock for 12 hours every day as a result of reduced traffic flow, not to mention lots of bumps as people tried to work out the different permutations!
You can stop in a box junction if you are turning right, and the only thing preventing you from completing the manoeuvre is traffic coming towards you or also queuing to turn right. If my memory serves me correctly, I think that once upon a time you weren’t allowed to wait behind another vehicle waiting to turn (i.e. only one car at a time was allowed in). I might be wrong about that, but it is a moot point anyway, since it is what the Highway Code says now that matters. However, this may explain why people think it is wrong to follow other traffic through a junction when going ahead, even though it only applied to turning right.
Box junctions are intended to prevent traffic being gridlocked. They used to work very well, though they are less effective these days as driver arrogance and ignorance has increased. Lorries and buses think nothing of blocking box junctions during rush hour, and it is only in London (where cameras are used to enforce the rules, and where there is a flourishing business in legal firms trying to get people off when they’re caught) where they are taken seriously – though perhaps not for the reasons originally intended.
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!
From today (1 March 2017) the 
Over the last week or so I’ve noticed the sudden appearance in my stats of visits to the blog using the search term “applied coach approach”. Until the first one last week no one has EVER used that term before, now it is appearing multiple times per day.
I was on a lesson with a pupil today and I asked her how she was getting on studying for her theory test. I asked her to identify a pedestrian crossing we had just passed, and it was clear she was a little confused. Next time we stopped, I got my sketch pad out and went through the different types to show her how understanding them made answering theory test questions much easier than just trying to remember the answers.
I picked a pupil up for a lesson tonight from his house. He’d already asked if we could finish at his girlfriend’s place over in Cotgrave, which I had no problem with. Well, I say that, but I did have some small reservations, which grew as the lesson went on.
This month’s 
Based on search terms used to find the blog:
I covered this years ago when the blog was still young! It was around the time of the last big rush of people wanting to become driving instructors. You might also want to take a look at my longer article, 
One fairly common reason people fail their driving tests is because they don’t use bus lanes properly. Unfortunately, a contributing factor is that very few so-called ‘experienced’ drivers know how to use them, either. And to make matters worse, the people who work for local councils and the contractors who produce bus lane signs also appear clueless.
