I noticed someone on a forum state that “coasting is driving without a gear engaged”. As it appeared to be meant to be interpreted, this is not correct. Coasting is where the vehicle is moving but it is not being driven by the engine, and that can happen:
when the clutch is down and the car is in gear
when the clutch is either up or down and the car is in neutral
So it isn’t just when the car is in neutral. The official DVSA description, given in Driving: The Essential Skills, confirms this:
Coasting means that, although the vehicle is moving, it’s not being driven by the engine. This occurs when the clutch pedal is held down or when the gear lever is in the neutral position.
Coasting for any distance is wrong because
it reduces the driver’s control of the vehicle
you might have difficulty engaging a gear if something unexpected happens
it almost certainly leads to the vehicle gathering speed when travelling downhill. It means harder braking and it removed assistance of engine braking in low gear.
Each time you change gear you coast a little; this is unavoidable, but it should be kept to a minimum.
It is important to note that holding the clutch at the biting point is not coasting, and there are many situations where using this technique gives control that you otherwise wouldn’t have. A good example is when travelling up a slope in slow moving traffic, where having the clutch fully up would mean you might be going too fast and have to keep stopping. Obviously, you don’t want to be slipping the clutch like this all the time because it will wear it out more quickly, but when dealing with a busy junction it can be the best approach.
What is engine braking?
When you apply gas, the engine goes faster and – if the car is in gear and the clutch is up – the car accelerates. Conversely, when you take your foot off the gas, the engine slows down, and this means that the car decelerates. If you are coasting, it doesn’t matter what speed the engine is revving at because it isn’t connected to the wheels, and the car will do whatever gravity decides it should do.
Is coasting always wrong?
No. At very low speeds on level roads, or slight inclines, the lowest speed possible even in 1st gear might still be too fast (in rush hour traffic when approaching junctions, for example). In these situations, what you can do is give the car an occasional nudge using the clutch, then let it slow down as you coast a little. You won’t be doing this for extended periods – just for however long it takes you to deal with the situation you are in. Even on gentle declines, having the clutch up might mean you’re going too fast, so you could simply keep the clutch down and “feather” your brakes (i.e. apply continuous gentle braking) to control your speed. Technically, you are coasting – but you are still in full control.
A similar thing applies when negotiating very tight corners (usually, but not always, when turning left). One option might be to use 1st gear and go round with the clutch fully up. However, another way is to slow right down on approach, drop into second gear and bring the speed down to the required level, commence turning, then gradually raise the clutch as you move through the turn.
A lot can depend on the car you are driving. Diesels, for example, can often pull forward faster than their petrol counterparts at low revs, and slipping the clutch in the lower gears is one way of dealing with that. In either of these examples, though, you must not coast so much that you roll back, pick up too much speed, or slingshot around corners. You must retain control at all times.
What sort of coasting IS wrong?
You shouldn’t go all the way around corners or sharp bends, or drive at normal speeds for any significant distance, with the clutch down. This includes declutching early when slowing down, or declutching for too long when changing gear. Particularly on downward slopes, the car will quickly pick up speed if it is coasting, whereas engine braking prevents this.
When on a steep decline, coasting would allow the car to pick up speed rapidly. Having the clutch up means that engine braking will hold it back. Conversely, on a steep incline, the car would rapidly roll to a stop and then begin to roll backwards.
Why is coasting wrong in general?
Without engine braking the brakes have to do more work, and this usually means that stopping takes longer. What you should do is use the brakes to slow down in conjunction with engine braking then declutch to either stop and/or change into a gear appropriate for the new speed. Don’t automatically declutch when you want to slow down – learners easily fall into this trap, and the lack of deceleration (or even the acceleration that results) nearly always leads to them making errors as they attempt to negotiate a hazard. Excessive speed for the situation (often due to coasting in one form or another) is one of the main enemies of the learner driver in just about every case because it reduces the amount of time available for them to think, plan, and act.
Reading the forums, it never ceases to amaze me how many ADIs who started their careers with a franchise vehemently try to deter new instructors from choosing that route.
A new ADI who is doing this job as their intended main source of income needs to get work as quickly as possible. In any given location in the country, an established franchiser is always going to be able to attract pupils more reliably than a newly-qualified instructor will be able to. That franchiser might overdo the sales pitch a little, by “guaranteeing” a full diary (then again, who is to say that they’re wrong – in the current climate it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if franchisers were able to do that), but it still remains that they have already done the advertising and their machine is up and running.
The driving instruction industry is so well-established and profit margins so well-defined that, at the top end, you simply cannot charge whatever you like because you’ll price yourself out of the market if you do. The only scope you have is to reduce your prices, but since the profit margin is so tight you will quickly start feeling the pinch if you drop below the going rate.
Within this established industry you have fairly stable overheads to cover – notably your car, fuel, and pupil generation. If you are solo, a car is going to cost between about £80-£150 a week just to have sitting on your driveway. Fuel will run to £50-£100 a week if you are working 30 hours. Pupil generation is more difficult to cost, but a small advert in Yellow Pages might cost £600 for a year, and that works out to about £12 a week, so let’s just go with that. Overall, you could easily be paying £200 in business overheads.
If you went with a national franchise then you might have to pay £200 just for the car. Fuel would still be needed, but advertising would be taken care of. It seems like no contest, doesn’t it? Pay £200 on your own, or around £280 with a franchise. But this is where the established solo ADIs are very misguided when they start dishing out advice. Because they do not take into account the all-important turnover, which is obviously the primary key to success as a driving instructor.
There is virtually no chance that a newly-qualified ADI will be able to generate 30 hours of new pupils on their own within a realistic advertising budget (in my first year I did the Yellow Pages thing and got literally zero response; and I also spent £150 on three separate monthly ads in a local free newspaper, which also got zero response), and especially not if they’re charging the local going rate for lessons. Inevitably, they will cut their prices to try and attract business, but at best they will only get maybe 10-15 hours of work (and that after many weeks of trying). So in an area where the going rate for lessons is £25, they will be charging perhaps £20, giving them a turnover of up to £300 a week. Their weekly pre-tax profit will be a mere £100 (or £5,200 a year).
If that same newly-qualified ADI went with a franchise and could therefore charge the going rate of £25, and if the franchiser delivered the promised 30 hours of work, they would have a turnover of £750 and a pre-tax profit of £470 (or £24,400 a year). Suddenly, the franchise option isn’t quite as unattractive as it first seemed, is it?
Just about every new ADI gets it into their head that they’re going to corner the market and have work coming out of their ears. And just about every new ADI quickly discovers that this is nonsense after several months of trying. The surprising thing is that no one ever seems to learn from this. Many stick at it – and then go back to salaried employment as bankruptcy looms. And it all happens because they couldn’t see beyond paying slightly more to a franchiser and getting the work, choosing instead to forge ahead alone and get no work at all. Worse still is the fact that those who survive then persist in passing on the same misguided advice to those who come after them. My favourite line from those who haven’t got a clue what they’re talking about is:
Why pay money to a franchiser when you could have it in your own pocket?
If a franchiser is guaranteeing work, you’d have to be nuts to risk going it alone, especially if you have no knowledge of how to get the work by yourself. Most new ADIs definitely do not have that knowledge. Unfortunately, they’re also dumb enough to listen to stupid people who don’t do this job as their sole source of income, and yet who offer highly misleading “advice” as if they did.
Once you are established, and generating your own work through referrals (where previous pupils recommend you to family and friends), it makes perfect sense to consider going solo. It’s still not as black and white as the “experts” would have you believe since work can fluctuate dramatically, but at least you are likely to be able to take the financial risk by this time. Newly-qualified ADIs usually do not have that luxury.
I’ve heard a lot of complaints lately about the waiting times for driving tests. DVSA knows there is a problem and it is trying to deal with it though what that article doesn’t mention is the back door solution also being looked at, which involves making the test so easy that a monkey could pass it. Mark my words: that second solution is the one that they’ll go with (assuming the public consultation that will follow the trial a) doesn’t overwhelmingly come out against it, and b) if it does, the consultation isn’t ignored).
That Despatch article explains why waiting times have gone up. First, there is the upturn in the economy, which means people are taking tests in greater numbers (for many, it adds a vital string to their bow when job hunting). Second, DVSA says it has had more examiners retiring. Third, DVSA says there has been a surge in 20-somethings taking their tests after putting it off (I’m not sure why they give this as a separate reason, as it is just the first one worded differently.
Quite frankly, DVSA should have seen the examiner crisis coming and dealt with it long before it became a problem. Come to think of it, they also ought to have anticipated the country coming out of recession, because it was pretty bloody obvious that it was going to end sooner or later. I detected the upturn as long ago as early 2014 – I wrote about it on the blog – yet DVSA says it only predicted an increase in the number of tests “late last year”. I’m sure I recall them predicting a fall in the numbers of those taking tests within the same time frame as all of this even though their own data show a sustained increase in tests from January 2013 onwards (and that was during the depths of the recession).
None of it makes any sense. And to top it all, there’s only been a 5% increase in the number of tests taken between January and March 2015 compared with the same period last year – yet waiting times have gone up by more than 100%.
Recruiting new examiners will take ages. From what I’ve read on certain forums they’re only on the situational judgement test (the earliest part of recruitment process) even now, in spite of claiming that recruitment started in October 2014 (it may be a different intake, of course, though it is more likely that “starting” something in civil service speak translates into taking almost a year before it turns into “doing” it). The actual training and probationary periods alone add up to over 10 months before anyone can be a fully-functioning examiner, and before that there are other tests intended to sort the wheat from the chaff. Allowing for the typical civil service efficiency noted above you can probably add up to six weeks of dead time between each of the stages, so we’ll be lucky if we see any examiners from this source before 2017. Of course, that leaves another possible back door open, and I can see them trying to fast track unsuitable people through the training programme.
Phew. I wrote a lot more than I intended there once I got going. The real reason I did this article, though, was the because of an item I got on the newsfeeds concerning Liverpool’s test waiting times – between 9 and 13 weeks, apparently. Well, my local test centres are officially claiming between 9 and 13 weeks, but I can assure you that one pupil who booked a test a few weeks ago could only get one in January 2016. When I worked it out, it must have been about 19 or 20 weeks. That’s around 10 weeks more than the official figure, and it’s a discrepancy I have been seeing for the whole of this year – with actual waiting times being considerably (and consistently) greater than the officially reported ones.
I also note from that news item that a local instructor is claiming that the long waiting times are costing him work, because people want tests quickly and they therefore go to other parts of the country if they can’t get them in Liverpool! Now, it may be a Liverpool thing, and perhaps people there really do go elsewhere if they can’t get an early test date. But the question I would ask is: where? The Manchester area has official waiting times of between 5 and 9 weeks, which in reality is probably closer to 15 weeks. Leeds is officially almost as bad as Liverpool. Anyone traveling further afield than that is crazy. My own pupils have been shopping around, I must admit, but only to book tests at the local test centre with the best time. Anyone who comes to me in September wanting to pass before Christmas, I tell them straight that they have got virtually no chance – and especially not if they haven’t even done their theory test yet.
Incidentally, that same instructor also claims his franchisees all have full diaries. In that case, you can’t say that you’re losing work – turning it down because you can’t accommodate it is not “losing” it. You’re only losing it if you want it and need it, but it goes elsewhere.
He also says that DVSA don’t pay examiners to work weekends anymore. Again, I can’t speak for Liverpool, but DVSA says in that Despatch article I linked to at the start that examiners are being encouraged “to work additional hours to provide more tests.” One of my current pupils has got a Sunday test in mid-October, which he booked in early August (that was 10 weeks even then), so – and as I say, unless Liverpool is different – that instructor’s comments are incorrect.
Another Liverpool instructor is quoted as saying that the number of tests decreased over the last few years. I refer again to the official DVSA figures, which do not back up this claim at all. In December 2012 they carried out around 100,000 tests, but since then the number has steadily increased, to over 150,000 in April 2015. The most tests conducted in a single month was around 170,000 in October 2007 so we are very nearly at that same level right now.
The only relevant factor has to be the number of people eligible for (and trying to) take the driving test. Irrespective of retirements or anything else, if they are conducting almost as many tests as they were back in 2007 (and they are), then if the waiting time is increasing it simply has to be just that more people want tests than in 2007! And only that.
Of course, you then have to ask who these additional test candidates really are. Can they all be 20-somethings who decided not to learn during the recession? My own observations suggest not.
lane is marked obe route only do i beed ro ibdicate
I didn’t realise that catching a cold could carry over into someone’s typing. Either that, or they were typing in the dark (I hope and pray they weren’t doing it while they were driving, though that’s an increasingly likely problem these days).
The translation is:
lane is marked one route only do I need to indicate?
What this person is asking is to do with road markings and left-only and right-only arrows. The short answer is no. If the lane only goes in one direction and is marked as such then there is technically no need to indicate.
It’s not quite as simple as that, though. You have to ask yourself if the direction the lane goes is clearly visible to everyone behind you – visitors who may not know what you know, for example. And does the volume of traffic make it hard for people to see the arrows on the road?
I suspect the question is related to someone’s driving test, quite possibly because they have already failed one, or because they’re starting to worry about one they have booked. The first thing I’d do is ask your driving instructor – he should know what to do at the junction in question. If you’re not taking lessons with an ADI then you could phone your local test centre and ask for advice. The examiners are usually only to glad to help and they usually know the area well. Unless you clear it up directly with them, the problem you have is knowing what the examiners expect, and this can vary from centre to centre and around the country. There is no absolute answer, unfortunately.
With my own pupils on lessons, if they don’t indicate in a situation where they really didn’t need to (but could have), I always try to get to the bottom of why – did they decide it wasn’t needed, or did they just forget?
Something I always point out, though, is:
if you signal when you really don’t need to, the worst that could happen is that you’ll get a driver (minor) fault
if you don’t signal when the examiner thinks you should have, you could get a serious fault
Note that I am referring to the exact query made at the start of this article, and nothing else. Your signals should not be misleading. But nor should your lack of signals be misleading, either. And this applies only to learners and normal drivers only – if you’re doing your Part 2 test, signalling when you don’t need to is a driving fault.
If a pupil tells me they decided not to signal (and if they’re correct), I am happy with that. But if they tell me they forgot, then I’d much rather they signalled without absolute need in future (as long as they aren’t misleading anyone) to develop their MSM skills. Instructors just need to face facts that in the real world you are not going to get all your learners (or normal drivers) to make instant and perfect decisions, and sometimes it pays to err on the side of caution with a technically unnecessary signal.
I saw this news clip on the BBC a couple of days ago. In one way, it’s old news (if you’re an instructor who reads the relevant channels). since DVSA announced its plans well over a month ago, and is due to commence trials very soon. It was also covered in various newspapers during February. The story concerns proposals to alter the content of the driving test.
Judging from the BBC news item, you’d be forgiven for thinking it was all about cyclists yet again. The item features a woman who lost her husband (a cyclist) when he was hit by a (female) motorist who was farting about with a satnav and didn’t see him. In typical, saccharin-sweet, knee-jerk manner, this now means that the driving test should change solely to teach people about satnavs.
For f***s sake, satnavs come with an instruction manual. Even if people bothered to read it – or look at the pictures if they’re especially stupid – they are unlikely to follow any rule if it suits them not to. For example, every satnav manual in existence says – in words or in pictures – that you shouldn’t attach it directly in your field of view. Of course, that’s precisely where the vast majority of people put the damned things, where they could easily obscure the driver’s view of pedestrians, cyclists, and even other vehicles. They do it because they’re idiots – you know the ones: they have the satnav running when they go to the shops or travel to and from work – and no amount of “training” would ever make them do it any other way.
Every satnav manual also says not to use it while you are moving. Some units (and I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this applied to all of them) even nag you about it every time you turn them on – on my Ford, I don’t think you can’t turn the visual nag off, and you just have to press OK each time you start it for the first time after each engine start. And yet almost every driver in existence attempts to programme them or play around with the settings while they’re moving. Again, no amount of “lessons” now will ever change that – if they want to fiddle with it while they’re driving, then they will, and no one is going to persuade them otherwise.
It’s the same with mobile phones. Every jackass 17-year old (and anyone else, come to that) knows full well they shouldn’t use them while they’re driving. But of course, that rule only applies to everyone else, and not to them.
To be honest, I’m sick and tired of cyclists being held up as sentimental shields to try and prove points against motorists. The vast majority of cyclists are far less well-behaved on the roads than the vast majority of drivers. The majority disobey almost every Highway Code rule going at one time or another (not giving signals, riding on pavements, riding across pedestrian crossings which aren’t designated for cycles, red lights, and so on). The fact that they also ignore cycle routes and deliberately mix it with traffic might well appear to be a brilliantly militant way of proving their entitlement to use the roads, but it’s bloody stupid if they end up dead as a result of being right.
If these bleeding hearts are going to keep going on about petty issues like using satnavs, maybe they need to look elsewhere for the cure. Because another thing that makes my blood boil is the number of times I see mummies and daddies stopping on yellow zigzags in the morning to let their own brats out, obviously believing the rules about stopping on those only apply to others. And those idiots in spandex who shun cycle paths to deliberately get in the way of busy traffic on national speed limit roads. Or those who ride in huge groups on narrow country lanes.
Most of those people are parents, and their arrogant and ignorant attitudes are the real reasons why idiot 17-year olds use satnavs and mobile phones while they’re driving. Pity the kids being brought up by people who behave like this. It’s inevitable that if they are being taught adult skills by a bunch of retards who think it’s fun to get in the way of lorries and cars traveling at 60 or 70mph just to prove a point (or stop where it is illegal to stop, or cross where it is illegal to cross, and so on), is it any wonder they run the risk of killing someone when they become responsible for themselves? Poor parenting is the problem, and that’s where any training ought to be taking place.
As things stand, a 40 minute test involving 10 minutes of using a satnav – one of the changes being trialled – will have as much effect on the attitude of the average 17-year old as a drop of water does on the level of the Pacific Ocean. Much bigger changes are needed.
This article was originally published in 2015 after I saw an argument on a driving forum. I noticed a similar argument more recently, so I thought I’d update it.
The general rule is that you should signal whenever it would help another road user, including cyclists and pedestrians, to understand your intentions. However, some instructors seem to be hung up on trying to find reasons not to indicate just to show how clever they are, and they lose sight of everything else.
Using a simple example. When you are moving off from the side of the road or pulling over you should check your mirrors/blind spots and decide if a signal is needed. Although a PDI who was doing their Part 2 test would probably pick up a fault if they signalled when no one was there, learners on their driving tests almost certainly wouldn’t as long as they had checked their mirrors first. At the other extreme, not signalling to move off/pull over when someone is behind you is almost a guaranteed serious or dangerous fault.
Unfortunately, many ADIs have great difficulty dealing with things which aren’t black or white, and so create silly all-encompassing “rules” to teach to their pupils. As a result, some advise their learners to always signal whenever they move off or pull up, which is completely wrong. Examiners will usually let it go if the correct observations have been made, and no one else was affected. But in many instances, the observations have been half-hearted, and the pupil hasn’t seen that someone is approaching.
When it comes to turning left or right at junctions, though, this is where the confusion really takes hold. Neither The Essential Skills (TES, for normal drivers, available from Amazon, above) nor Roadcraft (which was written specifically for police drivers, also available from Amazon, above) state explicitly that you must signal for every junction, but neither do they state explicitly that you might not need to. Consequently, ADIs attempt to apply the guidance given for moving off/pulling over directly to turning at junctions. The result is that they end up teaching incorrect or inappropriate things. Let’s consider some examples to try and understand what should be taught.
To start with, learners should be taught to use the MSM routine (from TES) and not the IPSGA routine (Roadcraft).
MSM is specifically mentioned in the Highway Code several times, and it stands for “mirrors-signal-manoeuvre” (acronym collectors will also use MSPSL (mirrors-signal-position-speed-look), MSPSGL (mirrors-signal-position-speed-gear-look), MSPSLADA (mirrors-signal-position-speed-look-assess-decide-act), or any number of similar variants). The basic application of this is that on approaching a junction the driver should check their mirrors (M) and signal (S) in good time (though not too early), adjust their position (P) and speed (S) – which usually involves dropping into a lower gear (G) – look (L) at the junction as they get closer, assess the situation (A), make a decision about how to proceed (D), then act confidently (A) and complete the manoeuvre.
The vital detail here is that the signal stage is initiated long before the point at which the driver could be certain that there was no one around to benefit from it. By definition, and except in the most theoretical of situations which are unlikely to prevail in the real world, you would only know that the signal was unnecessary way after the point at which you should have signalled for you to be applying MSM properly. Any learner who delayed applying their signal for that long – and particularly if it then turned out that one was needed after all – would definitely be chasing down a test fail.
Now, if you had an unlikely junction which was in the middle of a vast, flat expanse of closely-cropped grassland, where you could see for many hundreds of metres in all directions as you approached it, and you could therefore be completely and utterly certain that you were the only road user around, then there would be absolutely no point in giving a signal to turn left or right. The problem is that 99.9999% of junctions are not like that (especially when they’re on test routes), so there is little point droning on and on about the one dreamt of last night).
The argument I was following when I first wrote this article next raised the question of how close another driver has to be to you before they enter the zone where you and your actions are likely to interfere with theirs, thus changing a “no signal” situation into a “signal” one. It is a needless complication for normal drivers. If someone is there, just check your mirrors and signal.
I’ve lost count of the times one of my pupils has approached a junction or roundabout, seen that it is apparently clear while they’re a few car lengths short of the line, gone for the emerge – only for me to have to use the dual controls because someone else has suddenly turned up. They have made their decision too early, and exactly the same thing can happen if you’re farting about trying not to signal when just signalling in the first place isn’t actually wrong.
While we’re on the subject, I’ve also lost count of the times a pupil of mine has emerged somewhere without checking properly (and I have, and seen that it is safe, which is why I’ve let them do it), and when I’ve pulled them over to discuss it they’ve said:
But there was no one else there!
This immediately earns the lecture about how they couldn’t possibly know that if they hadn’t looked properly, and especially if they couldn’t actually see – which in most cases they couldn’t at the point where they made their decision to go. The lecture works even better if they do it and there is someone coming, because then I can give my supplementary “I told you so” lecture, as well. It often helps to drive them slowly through the junction again with me doing the controls so that they can see how far away they were from being able to see clearly, and how close to the give way line they really needed to be before making a decision.
The whole debate about not signalling at junctions for learners is stupid, pointless, and dangerous.
What is MSM?
It stands for “mirrors-signal-manoeuvre”, and it is the procedure you should use whenever you are driving and want to change course or direction. You don’t just use it for turning corners.
Some people refer to it by other acronyms – MSPSL, MSPSLADA, MSPSGL, and so on (as I explained above). But it is the same procedure they are talking about. Note that MSM is not the same as IPSGA, which is the system mentioned in Roadcraft. Roadcraft is the police drivers handbook and it is absolutely not intended to be the primary source of training material for normal drivers. Unfortunately, many ADIs have ideas well above their station and are incapable of understanding this, and try to teach too many Roadcraft-only principles to people who can’t even steer yet.
MSM is only a guiding principle. You often need to supplement the first M with blind spot and/or shoulder checks, and in the case of the S a signal may or may not be required depending on the circumstances.
Should I always signal when I am moving off?
Technically, no. You should check all around and only signal if there is someone there to benefit from it. People who might benefit include pedestrians and cyclists as well as other drivers. However, as long as you have checked you are unlikely to be penalised on your test for signalling to move away if there is no one there. Personally, I teach my own pupils the correct way from the outset, but as long as they have checked that it’s safe, and as long as they signal just before they move off (and not before they’re ready to go), I don’t worry about it too much.
When should I signal when I’m moving off?
When you are ready to move. Don’t signal before you have it in gear, and don’t signal before you have done your mirror and blind spot checks.
As a rough rule of thumb, if someone is coming up reasonably close behind you, you are not going to move off, and a signal would potentially cause confusion. A signal for moving off is most frequently for the benefit of oncoming vehicles, pedestrians, and parked vehicles which have (or might have) people inside. If you signal every time you move off, you’ll probably not get marked for it as long as your safety checks have been done and you don’t pull out in front of someone. Technically, though, you shouldn’t signal if there’s no one around who will benefit from it.
What if there is heavy traffic?
Usually, a signal is used to inform others of your intentions. It doesn’t give you any guaranteed right of way, and moving off is your decision based on your own safety checks. However, in very heavy and slow-moving traffic you can use a signal as a request to be let out – and I emphasise it is a “request” and not an excuse to just pull out. Wait until someone slows down to let you out, and if they flash their lights at you make damned sure they’re flashing at you, and not someone else waiting to move off or emerge from a side road.
Should I always signal when I am pulling up?
Same as I explained above. Technically, no. But be careful if you decide to do it anyway, because there is the risk of signalling too early and so being marked for a poorly timed signal (i.e. if there is a junction on your left) which isn’t an issue when you’re moving off.
Does it matter if I just signal to pull up anyway?
You will almost certainly get away with it if you do it on your test, as long as you check your mirrors first as part of the MSM routine.
How do I tell if someone will benefit or not?
This is why the whole issue is not as black or white as some would like it to be. For example, if there is a car parked in front of you as you move to pull up alongside the kerb, and there is someone in it, your signal would benefit them by informing them of your intentions. But can you be certain there is someone actually in the car? Sometimes you can see them, but other times – and particularly when there is poor lighting – you can’t be sure. So if in any doubt, just use a signal.
What does “signal if it will benefit others” mean?
One example. You’re parked at the side of the road and want to drive away. You’re in gear, gas and bite set, hand on your handbrake. What now?
If the road is completely empty it’s OK to release the handbrake and go. There is no need at all to indicate, because there is no one around who will see it – as in ‘benefit’ from it. However, if you do choose to use your indicator, it doesn’t matter – so long as you have checked.
Same situation, but someone is coming towards you the opposite way. This time, a signal tells them you’ll be moving away.
Same situation, but someone is approaching from behind. If they are close enough, let them pass and keep your indicator off. If there’s time to move off, signal and do it. Now they know you’re pulling out.
Same situation, but there is a parked car near you with someone in it. A signal lets them know you’re moving away in caser they were also thinking of pulling out. The same would apply if you weren’t sure if there was someone in the parked car.
Same situation, but there are pedestrians walking along the pavement. A signal tells them you’re moving away in case they were thinking of walking in front of you.
Basically, as long as you have checked, it doesn’t matter if you signal whether there’s anyone there or not. It’s just that if there isn’t, you don’t need to – but if there is, you should.
Should I signal if I’m in a lane which only goes one way?
Technically, there is no need to signal if the lane you’re in has a left- or right-only arrow painted on it. However, sometimes people use these lanes incorrectly and giving a signal might make sense (remember that when a signal is “of benefit to other road users”, it doesn’t just mean the good ones). As long as you don’t mislead or confuse anyone, you shouldn’t be penalised for indicating in these situations.
When should I give the signal?
It needs to be properly timed and not misleading. If you’re going to give a signal for moving off, do it just after you release the handbrake (just before is OK, but I prefer just after). Don’t start signalling before you’ve even got the car into gear – it drives me mad when my pupils do that. Leaving the indicator on for too long is confusing to other road users. Signalling should be the last thing you do before you move away after you’ve made sure it is safe enough to go.
When pulling up, don’t signal too soon such that people might think you are turning left, or that you are going to stop sooner than you are.
Will I fail if I always signal to move off or pull up?
No, not if you have checked to see if it is safe first. However, signalling unnecessarily when moving off or stopping is technically wrong, so try to do it properly instead of just trying to play safe. If you think about what you’re doing, it’s likely to be much more reliable than just doing the same thing each time without thinking.
Should I always signal when I am turning left or right at a junction?
You should be using the MSM routine, and this means that you should be signalling to turn left or right long before you find out if anyone was in the road you are turning into. So the answer is pretty much yes – unless you have one of those magical open junctions that everyone seems to think of when they start getting confused about signals, or if you want to play Russian Roulette with the examiner on your test.
But what if I can see that there is no one around to benefit?
Look, it’s up to you. If you are 100% certain – and I mean really 100% – that there is no possibility of someone turning up even when you’re back at the point where you should have begun your MSM routine, then there really is no need to signal. But what have you got to lose by signalling for a left or right turn anyway? Except in the Magical World of perfectly flat and featureless landscapes you are unlikely to be able to guarantee no one will turn up, and it won’t be marked if you do signal (even if it was it would only attract a driver (minor) fault). On the other hand, if you choose not to and the examiner disagrees that a signal was unnecessary you’re chasing down a serious fault. Don’t be a smart arse, and especially not on your driving test!
Should I signal to overtake a bus?
It depends. If it is clear ahead and you’re travelling at a normal speed, and if the bus has only just stopped, a signal probably isn’t needed. Anyone following can see what you’re going to do, and the bus driver is dealing with his pick up and wouldn’t benefit from your signal.
If the bus has been stopped for a while, there is an increasing likelihood that he will want to move off. A signal would inform the bus driver of your intentions, and if he is even partly a good driver he will wait until you’ve passed. Just allow for the fact that a lot of bus drivers aren’t even partly good drivers, and may well move off as you are passing, so be prepared to stay calm and get past promptly and safely.
If you’ve had to slow down or stop behind the bus to wait for oncoming traffic, and then intend to pass the bus when it becomes clear, a signal for traffic following you becomes important. It warns them that you are going to overtake, so they ought not to try to overtake you and the bus together. Allow for the fact that some drivers will still go for it – BMW and Audi drivers especially, because they have go-fast pratmobiles that can accelerate quickly.
If there are pedestrians or other road users around who look like they’re going to try and cross the road, a signal would benefit them, and that would apply even in that first example where the bus has only just stopped.
Essentially, if there is anyone who would benefit from a signal, then give one. But still be careful, because a signal doesn’t give you any special privileges.
Should I just signal anyway to be on the safe side?
It depends. If you mean just blindly signal so you don’t have to check the road properly, then it is just a cop-out, and one which could get you in serious trouble if you miss something important. On your driving test, examiners are quite relaxed about unnecessary signals, but they will nail you to the wall if you miss a mirror or blind spot check, or if your signal is confusing.
If you have checked, and still signal even if you really don’t need to, then that’s not so important unless it is confusing to other road users.
What if the test in question is my ADI Part 2 test?
Signalling unnecessarily can be marked as a fault on the Part 2 test. You certainly want to be doing it properly when moving off and pulling over, but trying to be clever at junctions by not signalling might backfire.
As far as turning left or right at junctions is concerned on your Part 2, if you have one of these magical open junctions on your test routes you need to get advice from your trainer and/or the examiner(s) who take ADI tests in your area to find out what is expected. The examiners would be more than happy to advise you.
This DVSA email reports that from Monday 12 January 2015, the Hazard Perception Test will switch from real clips to CGI (computer generated) ones. The Theory Test is otherwise unchanged and it is quite likely candidates will be unaware of the change – the clips are so realistic.
I can’t wait to see comments from the ignorati out there. I think I’ll open a book on who brings up “video game” first.
Incidentally, the Driving Test Success (Focus Multimedia) app now has a Vol 2, which consists of CGI clips. It only costs £1.49 and is well worth downloading.
You can scan the QR code shown here to find it, or search the app store for your phone – search for “Hazard Perception Test vol 2”.
My advice is to download ONLY the Focus Multimedia apps for the theory test (questions and hazard perception). Nothing else comes close to the quality of these.
Technically, you can get away with just downloading the volume 2 clips now, but I’d strongly advise downloading volume 1 as well if you want to have the best chance of passing. Even if you buy all three apps – questions and two HPT volumes – you’re paying less than £6 for all the training materials you will ever need.
I saw this topic on a forum recently. It concerns emerging – usually on to a roundabout – using a vehicle on your right as a “shield”. I’ve covered roundabouts in detail before, but this is a separate subject.
There is no official guidance that I am aware of which says you should or shouldn’t do it. I have to be honest and admit that I do it myself sometimes, but only if I am confident that I’m not taking too big a risk. Because it IS a risk, and doing it right depends heavily on how well you can control the car – being able to accelerate briskly, and to brake quickly and effectively if the situation changes – and on how well you can read other people. Most new drivers do not have those skills, and this should guide their decision about whether or not to do it.
So, what are the risks? Well, imagine that you’re sitting at the entrance to a roundabout in the left hand lane, and that there is a van to your right. The van is blocking your view of traffic coming from the right. Suddenly, the van moves off, and you follow suit. If everything goes to plan, you drive merrily on your way and everyone is happy. But consider the following possibilities:
The van driver made the wrong decision and a bus or lorry was coming from the right. The bus/lorry collides with the van and pushes it into you, or the van sees the bus/lorry and realises he’s made a mistake, then takes evasive action by turning into your path.
The van driver made the wrong decision because something was coming, and brakes sharply. You continue ahead and are suddenly exposed to whatever it is that made the van brake.
The van moves off, but something was coming. The van manages to get away, but you move off a fraction of a second later – perhaps jumping a little as you rush the manoeuvre, thus slowing you down a bit more – and are exposed to whatever the van was trying to beat.
The van moves off, but he was timing his move because there was something coming. You accelerate ahead and are exposed to whatever the van was waiting for.
The van stops. You also manage to stop, but the car behind you had tried to move off with you and doesn’t react in time. He drives straight into the back of you and pushes you further on to the roundabout.
The simple fact is that no matter how well it turns out, you were simply guessing that the road was clear, and in the case of using a van as your shield were relying on someone who almost by definition was not the best example to follow. The examples above CAN happen.
Now, if the vehicle you’re using as a shield is bigger – a bus or a lorry, for example – it is likely to move off more slowly, and that means you can do the same. If it stops, you’ll have more time to react. Generally speaking, buses are less likely to take risks compared with van drivers, and lorries are less likely to be pushed into your path if someone collides with them. But even so, this is a mercenary view of a situation which still boils down to you taking a gamble on something you can’t see.
You cannot be certain how quickly or slowly your shield is going to move. Some lorries (e.g. motorway maintenance ones or those that often carry earth or rubble for building sites) can move off very quickly, especially if they’re unladen. Some vans – in spite of always adopting the “fast” lane as their default – move away extremely slowly (usually the old smelly DAF vans, or old rust buckets). If you can read this it definitely helps you make your decision. Oh, and consider which route you intend to take – if you’re going straight ahead, using a shield makes a lot more sense than if you’re simply turning left. Using a shield for left turns is roughly equivalent to trying to do roundabouts wearing a blindfold!
I always teach my learners that if they can’t see, then they shouldn’t go. Early on in their training they can easily be led by what other drivers are doing, and I often have to warn them “don’t copy him – wait until you can see” as they start to move off whilst completely unsighted (and sometimes in the wrong gear). Later on, I explain that using a shield during normal driving is only even passably acceptable if you’re bloody sure about what you’re doing. Don’t copy cars (especially Audis and BMWs, which are faster than you, and are driven by bigger idiots), and be very careful with vans (the drivers of which probably own Audis or BMWs anyway). And yes, I use that sort of language to get the message across.
DVSA has been putting out reminders about the Highway Code and how it relates to driving in bad weather. Quite right, too.
Snow On The Roof
Anyone who drives their car with a thick cover of snow on the roof doesn’t deserve to hold a driving licence. Furthermore, if the idiot in question has kids with them then they are in need of an urgent visit from Social Services to discuss suitable foster homes for the protection of their offspring.
Look at the picture below, which shows how a covering of snow on the roof can suddenly slip and obscure the driver’s view (and this appears to be on a stationary vehicle).
It is not a rare occurrence – it happens more times than it doesn’t in this country, I can assure you. I witnessed it happen to several moving cars while out on lessons over the weekend, but the “best” one was on Sunday.
I’d just dropped a pupil off after a lesson, and on approaching the Crown Island to join the busy ring road I’d already had to negotiate a taxi which was stopped at a set of lights with its hazard lights on (I assume it had broken down, though with taxis it’s hard to tell, and having one of them stop in the middle of a box junction at a crossroads to pick up a fare isn’t as unlikely an event as you might think). Anyway, as I approached the island there was another major hold up. This time some prat had stopped in the right hand approach lane about two car lengths from the give way line. Why? Because he’d got a 3” deep slab of snow on the roof, had braked hard, and the snow had fallen down as a frozen sheet on to his windscreen. It was too heavy for the wipers to clear, so the dolt had had to get out and start shovelling by hand.
He was lucky he hadn’t driven into the back of someone. He was lucky no one had driven into the back of him. He was lucky his wipers hadn’t snapped or burnt out when he vainly tried to wipe the ice clear. And he was lucky he hadn’t discharged his battery. Mind you, come to think of it, any of those last three things could still have happened for all I knew after I’d got past him.
He should have cleared his roof before he left home, of course. But that would have meant dumping the nasty snow in his own driveway instead of on the approach to a roundabout where it could cause significant danger to other drivers. These prats who think it’s really clever to keep snow on the roof – either to amuse the kids, or themselves – inevitably lose it at some stage. Even if it doesn’t fall on to their windscreen it ends up all over the road when they brake sharply, which this kind of person is wont to do at every junction and roundabout. Eventually, there is just the right combination of melting underneath and freezing on top to send the sheet hilariously on to the road where a previously clear road now has an ice patch right where you least want one.
Steamed-up Windows
Then there’s the problem of steamed up car windows. I’m sick of being cut up by cars full of spotty-faced kids with windows completely steamed up. These people can’t drive very well at the best of times, so you’d imagine that they’d want to have a good all-round view, wouldn’t you? Apparently not, though, and they’d much rather just fling the car from lane to lane without having a clue who or what is behind them.
I took a young lad out on a Pass Plus session the other day. He wasn’t one of my own ex-pupils, and he had lots of questions. One of them was:
Is it normal for cars to steam up like this all the time?
We’d been driving for a few minutes and the side windows had started to mist up. I explained to him that yes, unfortunately it was normal. It happens because the cold air cannot hold the moisture that the passengers are giving off, so it condenses out on to cold surfaces. I then gave him my “show me, tell me” question talk, explaining that there are three main ways to clear mist off the windows:
The Heated Window button(s) – to demist the back, push the button that turns on the heated rear window. Some cars have a heated front windscreen, too, which has a similar effect at the front.
The Heater/Fan – by blowing a lot of warm air at the windscreen and side windows, the mist is evaporated.
The Air-conditioning – the aircon system dehumidifies the air, which completely prevents misting up to start with, and eliminates it quickly if it’s already happened. It uses a little more fuel at lower speeds – and I said “a little”.
He was amazed at how the aircon sorted out the problem within a minute. What’s more, after I switched it off the car remained mist-free for the whole 2 hour session. But I am fairly certain that a lot of drivers out there don’t even know about the heated rear window, let alone whether or not their car has a heated front window or air-conditioning.
Note that you can get demister sponges – made from chamois or faux-chamois wrapped around a foam pad – which work well up to a point. They’re ideal for cars which don’t have aircon. What puts me off them is that after you’ve used them a couple of times they pick up grease and leave smears on the glass.
Inappropriate Speed
On Monday this week I was sitting with a pupil outside his house at the start of a lesson. His roads were all covered in shiny sheet-ice as a result of compacted snow and no gritting, and since this was his first time in such conditions I was giving my snow/ice talk prior to going to look for places where we could skid safely. Three or four houses down the road was a t-junction and, as we watched, a Corsa driven by a woman (if she didn’t have kids in the car at the time, she certainly had all the things stuck on the back window that indicate she usually did) appeared. It slammed its brakes on, skidded across the entire road, and ended up almost touching the kerb opposite.
It took many wheel-spins for her to correct her position and carry on in the direction she intended. I asked my pupil what he though would have happened if someone had been travelling along the main road and had this happen in front of them, bearing in mind the conditions on the road? What would have happened to the kids in the back of either car?
Since Friday, when it snowed, I have lost count of the number of people who have overtaken me or a pupil in places where it was only by sheer luck that they didn’t skid or end up skidding as a result of having to brake hard. There is no way anyone can know what is ahead of them, and when your ability to stop is so severely compromised by ice it is sheer stupidity to drive like this. Even up until yesterday (the snow has all melted by this morning) many roundabouts and traffic light junctions were still restricted to one driveable lane because of snow cover, and yet far too many prats were using the snow cover as overtaking space. And yet, without fail we caught up with them at the next junction, so all they had achieved was to behave stupidly, dangerously, and illegally for absolutely no gain.
In this country snow-chains are pretty pointless, as they can only be used on contiguous snow cover without damaging the chains, your tyres, and the road surface. We rarely get those conditions in England or where roads are treated and maintained. Snow socks are an alternative worth considering. They fit easily, and can be used over patches of tarmac, though care is needed as your tyres effectively do not meet the minimum tread depth specification. However, they could get you up (or down) that last hill to your driveway.
Correct Preparation
Just prior to driving off.
Clear off all snow from the windows, roof, bonnet, lights, and mirrors
Use an ice scraper or a car squeegee to help dislodge and move large areas of snow
Use an ice scraper and/or de-icer to remove frost and ice from windows and mirrors
Use the car heater and heated window/mirror controls to help you dislodge ice on windows and mirrors
Use the air-conditioning, hot air blowers, and a suitable cloth/sponge if you like to de-mist the windows inside
Don’t forget that your rear view mirror will also steam up when it is cold, so give it a wipe
All you have to do is wait 2-3 minutes with the engine running and the heater blowing at the windscreen and the windows will demist – do it while you’re clearing snow or scraping ice
There are other car checks that you should carry out routinely anyway, especially if you’re going on a longer journey.
Check your tyre pressures
Check your screen wash fluid level and make sure you have some spare in the boot
Fill up with fuel before you leave town, and make sure you know where fuel stops are along the way
Make sure your screen wash fluid is the right concentration not to freeze
Carry de-icer, ice-scrapers, and clean rags for cleaning purposes
And a few other things that just make sense:
Make sure you have suitably warm clothing with you
Make sure you have your phone with you
Make sure you have money or a means to pay for things with you
Maybe a pair of snow socks just in case
Other advice you’ll see is to carry cat litter or sand to help you get out of ruts if you get stuck, a snow shovel to dig yourself out, and food to keep you going if you are stranded. Well, all that’s up to you – most people get stuck driving home from work or Tesco, and the chances of being marooned for several days until the rescue helicopter finds you are fairly remote. However, if you are planning to drive a long way you can consider these options.
Bottom Line
If you drive with snow on the roof (or anywhere else) or badly misted windows you don’t deserve to hold a driving licence! Don’t be a prat – just clean it off, turn up the damned heater, and find something else that amuses either you or the kids.
Surrey and Hampshire News (an outfit that obviously can’t afford a real web server for its publication, because this story is no longer available after less than two weeks) reckons that only 1 in 3 learners are taking lessons with qualified instructors, opting instead to be taught by family members.
I’m not sure I trust their figures. If nothing else, they fail to follow up on all those who start out with the cheaper option, then end up failing their tests and have to go to a proper instructor for remedial training later. Perhaps the quoted figure by MoneySuperMarket – that is costs “a whopping” £1,128 to learn to drive with an ADI – reflects this?
You see, £1,128 would equate to around 50 hours of lessons (well, 45 hours, plus the theory test and practical test fees) using my hourly rates. During this last year I’ve had one pupil do it in 14½ hours, and many others manage well under 40 hours, and I can’t see how or why this should be much different elsewhere if the training is up to scratch. In fact, what I think we’re starting to see is the effect of cheap lessons – the story and MoneySuperMarket only seem concerned about that, anyway – and the resulting quality issues.
I lost count long ago of the number of people who had been “taught” by mum or dad, or by a cheaper instructor, but who subsequently realised they weren’t getting anywhere. The biggest problem in most cases was getting rid of their appallingly bad habits.
Incidentally, the 
