DVSA - Diary Of An ADI

Examiner Strike 19/20 November 2015

20/11/2015

DVSA has advised candidates to turn up for tests as normal when industrial action involving fossils who are members of the PCS Union takes place on 19 and 20 November.

Remember that not all examiners are stupid enough to be in the union in the first place, and of those who are, they’re not all that stupid that they’ll be involved in the action. Remember that the further north you are, the more likely you are to be affected (sorry, but based on previous strike action, this is true).

To claim out of pocket expenses, you MUST turn up.

Amusingly, I noticed someone defending the examiners recently. They said that a strike is necessary when negotiations on pay rises come to a stalemate, and when one party is behaving pig-headedly and saying “that’s all you’re getting”. They say that negotiation is about give and take. Carry on at Your Convenience - union

Interesting – and either very naive or blindly utopian. Tell you what, next time you’re on a lesson and a pupil tries to negotiate a lower price, instead of telling them that your rate is £23 and that’s it, let them name a price instead. I’m sure you’ll both live happily every after for a long time afterwards.

In actual fact, reasons for the strike this time around are somewhat confusing. Pay is certainly one issue that keeps being mentioned, and this has definitely been the core reason for numerous strikes over the last few years. However, other reports suggest that it is also due to protests over the proposed changes to the driving test, and an increase in the number each examiner has to conduct. This article makes it clear what the main issue is this time around. It is the plans to increase the number of tests they have to conduct which is the reason for the strike. There’s no mention of changes to the test – and this is coming from a source which would support the strikers no matter what.

Going on strike remains an antiquated left wing activity, which has no place in the 21st century unless you live more than 53°N (or in London) – then, it becomes a way of life. The examiners have a valid point on this occasion, but striking is not the way to resolve it. Indeed, they have cried wolf by striking over so many things in the last three years (which is why some news sources are saying it is about pay) that when something like this comes along few people can see the distinction. A “work to rule” would be have been far more effective because it wouldn’t have hurt test candidates.

What is Coasting?

05/11/2015

DOAADI

ADI, DVSA, Training

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.

Darwin Awards Candidate Tries to Take Driving Test for Friend

02/11/2015

DOAADI

ADI, DVSA, Funny, News

Please note that all my “Darwin Awards” posts are my own take on situations and have no connection with any real award. I just like the term, as it describes people who are idiots very appropriately.

A new candidate for the 2015 Darwin Awards. An as yet unnamed 20-year old was arrested at the Barnet Test Centre whilst trying to take the test on behalf of a friend.

The deception was successful until you take into account the fact that he was caught. And that he had no insurance. And that he was “over the prescribed limit” suggesting he was drunk. And that he tested positive for drug-driving (that may have been the positive test they refer to). And that he was in possession of a prohibited lock knife.

His friend is also now a nominee for the 2015 Darwins. I mean, how could anyone be so stupid?

The New, Improved Driving Test

18/10/2015

DOAADI

ADI, DVSA, News

DVSA is currently conducting trials on a new-style driving test. The changes being trialled are listed here:

I don’t have a particular problem with the first two, though I do have some niggles about the satnav thing. But that last one is a real no-no as far as I’m concerned.

At the moment a candidate is expected to do one manoeuvre from turn in the road, reverse around a corner, parallel park, and reverse bay park. Before independent driving was introduced, they used to have to do two of these manoeuvres on their tests. I always supported independent driving, but I wasn’t happy at the loss of the manoeuvre – I saw it as a dumbing down of the driving test. But what they are proposing now is that instead of a candidate having to do either a turn in the road or reverse around a corner, they’d have to either drive forward into a bay and reverse out of it, or reverse and rejoin traffic (parallel park and reverse bay park are still in there). A monkey could do those things.

Pupils struggle with the reverse around a corner, and it is a significant source of test failures. However, as per this article:

Ministers want to improve the driving test pass rate, which is languishing below 50 per cent.

There’s the rub! The proposed changes are not intended to improve the driving test. They’re intended to make it easier.

Personally, I cannot understand why DVSA would want to actually test someone on something as mundane as stopping on the right side of the road. All of my pupils get to do it at one time or another, usually when we’re pulling up outside their house; but sometimes when we’re going to do a parallel park on a particular road I use, or if I need to pull over urgently and talk about something and there’s nowhere to do it on the left. I should also add that the roads we do it on are quiet urban roads – not busy A roads.

As usual, some instructors seem to be confused over what the Highway Code (HC) says. They are suggesting that it is illegal to park facing traffic so DVSA is wrong to ask candidates to do it. Here’s the actual HC wording:

Parking (rules 239 to 247)

Rule 239

Use off-street parking areas, or bays marked out with white lines on the road as parking places, wherever possible. If you have to stop on the roadside:

do not park facing against the traffic flow

[rule continues]

The section this is in in the HC is titled “Parking”, and the first bullet point says “do not park…” The $64,000 question is: if you stop temporarily, are you parking? Look at the next rule:

Rule 240

You MUST NOT stop or park on:

[rule continues]

a road marked with double white lines, even when a broken white line is on your side of the road, except to pick up or set down passengers, or to load or unload goods

[rule continues]

So, although Rule 240 says it is illegal (i.e. you MUST NOT) to park on a road with double white lines, you can stop to pick up or set down passengers, or to load/unload goods. Considering how that works in the real world, a lorry or van might stop and take up to 30 minutes – maybe more – to load or unload goods and not be breaking the Law, though if the same vehicle stopped and its driver went into the newsagents – even for less than a minute – then it would.

In Rule 239, though, there is no Law to break (i.e. do not). And since the distinction between stopping and parking has been made in Rule 240, it follows that pulling over to drop someone off (or to be tested on how well you do it) isn’t actually wrong. Even if you parked up and left your vehicle you wouldn’t be breaking any Law – you’d just be going against HC advice.

DVSA is not doing anything wrong in asking candidates to pull up on the right. It’s just so pointlessly simple an exercise that you have to question it as a replacement for the original manoeuvres.

But as I say, the government wants to increase the pass rate, and this is the way they’re going to do it.

Test Waiting Times

21/09/2015

DOAADI

ADI, DVSA, News, Training

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.

New Smoking Rules From October 2015

18/09/2015

DOAADI

DVSA

This DVSA alert refers to the new smoking law, which will apply to all drivers in England and Wales from 1 October 2015.

Smoking in vehicles: new rules from 1 October 2015

From 1 October 2015 it will be illegal to smoke in a vehicle with anyone under 18 present.

The new law will apply in England and Wales.

Both the driver and the smoker could be fined £50. The law applies to every driver, including those aged 17 and those with a provisional driving licence.

The law does not apply if the driver is 17 years old and is on their own in the car.

The law is changing to protect children and young people from the dangers of secondhand smoke.

Find out more at www.gov.uk/smokefreecars.

I agree with it – nothing annoys me more than seeing people smoking with kids in the car. I don’t know how they’ll enforce it, though.

Driving Test Shake Up Planned by Government

02/09/2015

DOAADI

ADI, Driving Tests, DVSA, News

This article in the Independent makes interesting reading. It reports that the Government is planning a shake up of the driving regulations – the “biggest since 1935”, if you believe the hype.

There is talk of partly privatising the driving test itself, closing test centres, and increasing the age of self-certification from 70 to 75 years. The article states:

Ministers want to improve the driving test pass rate, which is languishing below 50 per cent. The document states that there is “anecdotal evidence” that ill-prepared learners are booking their test date after only a handful of lessons, possibly because of concerns over waiting times between booking and taking the practical examination.

This is complete bollocks. The pass rate has gone up every year since 2002, and 47% is hardly “languishing” below 50. And waiting times have only gone up over the last year, so God only knows where this “anecdotal evidence” has come from. Here are the historical pass rates:

2002/3	2003/4	2004/5	2005/6	2006/7	2007/8	2008/9	2009/10	2010/11	2011/12	2012/13	2013/14	2014/15
43.2	42.8	14.9	42.6	43.3	44.2	45.3	45.9	46.3	46.9	47.1	47.1	46.9

I couldn’t find any data from before 2002, and that figure from 2004/5 has to be an error, but here’s what the data look like (without 2004/5) when plotted on a graph:

It’s bad enough that the Independent hacks didn’t research it properly, but I really do wish that those people cutting-and-pasting it on to forums would do their homework first. The situation is not as the Government (or the Independent) is reporting it, and that makes it invalid as the justification for change. The Government is merely pursuing an agenda – more on that in a moment.

The driving test pass rate has always “languished” below 100% for the simple reason that not everyone passes the test! The reason they don’t pass is because there is effectively a “pass mark” – dictated by the driver fault/serious fault boundary – which quite simply means that if they don’t drive well enough on the day then they will fail. It’s nature in action, and it results in a national pass rate of around 47% at the moment. You wouldn’t expect it to change much year on year unless someone was fiddling the results.

But that’s what the Government is proposing. One of the ways they will do it is already being trialled, and the actual changes being looked at include replacing most of the existing manoeuvres (which people can currently easily fail at) with ones that only a complete idiot could fail at. I mean, they are looking to replace the turn in the road and reverse round a corner manoeuvres with “pulling over on the right” and “reversing”!

To get an idea of what the Government is trying to do, you only have to look at the GCSE grading system. GCSEs are graded A to G and – like it or not – every one of those grades is officially considered to be a “pass”. It means that the “pass rate” for GCSEs has been above 97% since 1989, and every year you have people walking around with Es, Fs, and Gs pretending – having been led to believe – that they have a “pass”, when the reality is that no employer (or university) in the land is going to be demanding a handful of Gs in order to be considered for a position with them. The only grades that mean anything are the As, Bs, and Cs, and that brings the “pass rate” down to around 60%. Consider also that under the old O Level system, I believe that around 40% of candidates achieved an A-C grade (anything below that was NOT a pass), and you can see how the figures have been artificially elevated – don’t get me started on how GCSEs are far easier than ‘O’ Levels were.

But this is what they are proposing to do with the driving test. They want to make it so easy only a complete moron would ever fail it, and this will bring the “pass rate” up. What they blatantly fail to realise is that the higher pass rate will bear no relation to actual driving standards. In fact, it will mask a serious decline, as candidates will not be required to master more difficult skills and will only be asked to demonstrate much easier ones. Yet these people will be sent out on the roads with full driving licences.

There is mention in the Independent article of “the private sector [being] asked to help to fill any shortages of examiners and test centres.” I can’t get as worked up over this as some ADIs seem to be doing. It doesn’t specify who the “private sector” are, and it’s only the usual bunch of anti-DVSA instructors who are assuming that it means random people taken off the streets.

Another change that looks like it is going to happen anyway is that people will no longer have to declare themselves fit to drive when they reach 70. The age limit will be raised to 75. This is frightening.

Despatch Goes Blog

19/08/2015

DOAADI

ADI, DVSA, News

For some years, DVSA used to send out a periodical magazine called Despatch. I seem to recall that it was originally a paper magazine, then it went online as an 3-monthly e-zine with a much reduced (and ever-decreasing) content. The last time they published it was July 2013. Until I looked that up I had no idea it had been so long.

Anyway, an email alert from DVSA reports that Despatch is back in blog form.You can access it here.

I used to enjoy reading Despatch, though I have to say that towards the end it didn’t actually have much in it, and the news was always out of date because DVSA had sent out email alerts during the previous 3 months. I’m not sure how it will turn out now, but theoretically it can be 100% up-to-date.

One thing I’m not sure DVSA has thought through properly is the comments. At the moment there are only two stories – and three comments, in which you can already sense “an edge”. Once the real gutter trash gets wind of it… well, let’s wait and see.

Aaaaand there it goes! Just 24 hours later and we have plenty more comments – most of them from instructors centred on complaining about waiting times (even though the topic they’re commenting on is actually about how DVSA wants to address that), and “unfair” examiners.

A member of the public writes:

Georgina Covell — 18/08/2015

I agree they need the right people but this isn’t helping my son who needs his licence by the end of the month for a job application to progress

You have to wonder at the mentality of some people. You really do.

I wonder how long before DVSA makes their blog read-only? Negative comments like these detract from it’s usefulness.

Interpreter On Driving Test

18/08/2015

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, Driving Tests, DVSA

Completely rewritten in August 2015 due to further hits. Original article from 2010, and updated in 2012.

In late 2011 it was announced that there were plans to scrap tests where candidates cannot speak English. From 7 April 2014 this came into effect, and it is now no longer possible to have an interpreter on the Theory Test, nor will there be the provision of voiceovers. Tests will have to be conducted in plain English (or Welsh, or British Sign Language). Interpreters are also no longer allowed on the Practical Test.

I get quite a few hits on the search term “dsa [or dvsa] changes to interpreter” or something similar. I also get quite a few hits from people searching for information about having an interpreter with them on their driving test.

Note that at the time of writing, in Northern Ireland, it IS still possible to use an interpreter, and voiceovers in multiple languages are still provided on the Theory Test. In the UK mainland, you cannot.

My main concern over translated tests has always been the elevated risk of cheating. I know this is a taboo subject, but like it or not those people most likely to want to use an interpreter are frequently the ones most desperate to get a driving licence – whatever it takes. Interpreters tended to come from within their own communities and many of them created lucrative businesses out of it. Unfortunately, for cultural reasons which are even more taboo, fraud and deception easily crept in.

Don’t shoot me (especially that crazy woman from Manchester). I’m just the messenger. Those linguistic options have been removed is for precisely the reasons I have given. The government spokesman said:

It will also help us to reduce the risk of fraud by stopping interpreters from indicating the correct answers to theory test questions.

You wouldn’t believe how often I get people coming to the blog on the search term “how to bribe driving examiner”. Cheating and fraud is only held in check by how much money those assisting in it are prepared to charge for it.

As I’ve mentioned in another article, I once had a Chinese girl who spoke very little English. One time she didn’t see a 30mph limit sign because – as she explained to me herself (and it took a lot of effort to get it out of her with the language problems) – when she panicked she “only saw things only in Chinese!” That’s obviously a major problem, and it would apply to anyone who didn’t speak English – and more so to those whose first language doesn’t use the Western alphabet.

How do I become an official DSA [DVSA] interpreter?

Someone found the blog on that exact term. You can’t be an official DVSA interpreter, because there’s no such thing. There never was.

Independent Driving And Dyslexia

24/06/2015

DOAADI

DVSA

An old article, updated as a result of several hits recently.

A DVSA email alert (at the time, it was still DSA):

Margaret Malpas, British Dyslexia Association [BDA] Chair, has written an article about independent driving and people with dyslexia.

The forthcoming change to all practical driving tests to include a section of independent driving has led to a useful and constructive collaboration between the Driving Standards Agency (DSA) and the British Dyslexia Association to try and find reasonable adjustments for this element of the test for those people who have dyslexia.

Read Margaret’s article on the DSA website

The article is published at length on the DVSA’s website (see that link at the bottom of the alert).

What this does is put to bed – hopefully, once and for all – the idiotic objections being raised by certain people as part of the hidden agenda they have against the DVSA (via Independent Driving). The DVSA and the BDA are in accord over the matter – discord exists only in the minds of the pseudo-radicals.

The annoying thing is that Independent Driving just expects people to get from A to B unsupervised – and although it provides the details for where ‘A’ and ‘B’ are, it doesn’t care if ‘B’ turns into ‘Z’… as long as ‘Z’ is arrived at safely and correctly (let me explain that: if you take a wrong turn during independent driving no fault is recorded as long as you do it properly, i.e. use MSM correctly). This is conveniently overlooked (or quite possibly not understood) by the radicals.

If someone cannot drive unsupervised without causing danger to others, then they shouldn’t be on the roads at all, and they deserve to fail the test until they can drive unsupervised. This applies to all candidates – dyslexic or not.

Edit: it is worth noting that five years down the line, independent driving has made the test easier for the majority of candidates. Those who are still struggling to pass would have struggled no matter what, and they can’t blame it on having to drive independently.

It is also worth noting that those who created the biggest fuss about it have disappeared off the radar, which is an unexpected – but very welcome – benefit of the change.

Do dyslexics have to do independent driving?

Yes.

Category - DVSA