This is an old article, but it is still correct overall.
.I noticed someone asked a question on one of the forums about this. The range of replies was quite astounding, with everyone having their own “must-do-it-this-way” method, and poo-pooing everyone else’s “no-it-has-to-be-done-like-this” procedure.
Let’s take a look at the issue, starting in the most sensible place possible – the DT1 SOP that the examiners follow. It says (in various places throughout):
13 Move off:
Safely: failure to take effective observation before moving off, including the correct use of signals.
Under control: inability to move off smoothly, straight ahead, at an angle, or on a gradient.
This is fairly clear. You need to carry out effective safety checks before you move off.
1.30 MOVING OFF
The examiner should observe whether the candidate first sees to the front, then to the rear, that the way is clear for pulling out, gives the appropriate signal if necessary, and moves away smoothly and safely. Wherever possible, ability to move off on a reasonably steep uphill gradient should be tested. A candidate starting on a gradient should be capable of paying attention to other traffic as well as moving their vehicle away without rollback and/or excessive engine revolutions. If stopping on a hill is not possible an additional ‘normal’ stop need not be sought. However, the test must always include moving off at an angle from behind a stationary vehicle.
Also very clear. The examiner is expecting the candidate to check front and rear to make sure it’s safe to go. He expects them to signal if necessary.
3.32 MOVING OFF
The prime consideration when moving off is that the candidate does so safely, showing an awareness of the presence of other traffic and pedestrians.
The test should include a demonstration of the candidate’s ability to move off uphill, downhill and at an angle from a position reasonably close behind a stationary vehicle.
Gradients for testing the candidate’s ability to move off uphill or downhill should be between 8% (1 in 12) and 11% (1 in 9). Gradients steeper than 12% (1 in 8) should not be used in any circumstances.
Again, very clear. The prime consideration is that the candidate shows awareness of other road users and moves off safely. The examiner isn’t expecting to see a choreographed head-nodding routine, a “seven point check”, or any other silly procedure that someone has imagined up to try to make the whole business as automated as possible.
Assessment Criteria – (example = safely)
Driving Fault
Incorrect timing of the blind spot check when moving off with no risk to other road users. For e.g. Checking the blind spot after the vehicle has moved off.
Serious Fault
Moving off into the path of traffic or failing to take observation at all.
Dangerous Fault
Any situation brought about by the above lack of observation, that resulted in actual danger to the examiner, candidate, the general public or property.
This one gives the best indication of what should be happening (and why it often goes wrong). What is “incorrect timing”?
Well, I often pick up partly trained pupils who are terrible for this. I’ll say to them “drive on when you’re ready” and quick as a flash they fling the indicator on – when they aren’t even in gear and haven’t begun to think what might be going on behind.
But taking that one stage further, I also see a lot of pupils who will do one of the following:
- look all around before they have the bite, then find it and move off
- look all around, see something, wait, then move off without looking again
- look all around, not see something that’s definitely coming, and move off anyway
- look all around, see something coming, and move off anyway
This isn’t an exhaustive list. Pupils can find an infinite number of ways of doing things 
wrong. But the four I’ve listed are common.
The first one results in a delay between looking and moving – so something could have appeared behind during that period of delay in actually moving away.
The second one is similar. The pupil does the right thing for whatever they see coming, but then don’t check again for what might have appeared behind that while they were waiting.
The third one usually happens because they think they can move faster than they actually do, or because they misjudge the speed of the approaching vehicle. So they cause it to have to slow down or even brake hard.
The last one happens when they’re just doing the nodding-dog routine. They’re looking – sometimes not even that, as they just move their heads – but not seeing. I remember pulling one pupil to the side of the road to chew him out over his checks at a junction one time, but I couldn’t keep a straight face because his “observations” involved waving his head around with half-closed eyes as he looked at the gearstick! Better yet was the fact that he said “I know what you’re going to say”. And he did. He knew he’d done it.
So it’s very simple. when you move off, you’ve got to make sure it is safe to do so. The precise detail of how doesn’t matter as long as the safety aspect is adequately covered – and that means checking in front and behind to make sure nothing is coming.
What about signalling, though? As I have already mentioned I see a lot of pupils who just fling on the indicator to move away before they’ve looked or even got the car in gear!
This one is not as black and white as many instructors would like to believe (or try to make it). Of course, there are situations where you definitely should signal – and if you don’t then you will definitely fail your test. A good example is when pulling over and there is a car following you at a normal (or closer) distance behind. It would be dangerous to just stop without warning, so failure to signal in good time is almost certainly going to be marked as a serious fault. It’s harder to think of a definite situation where not signalling to move away would be regarded quite so severely by the examiner, but perhaps if you’re on a relatively narrow road and there is oncoming traffic (or pedestrians) quite close, moving away without a signal would be asking for trouble.
A lot of the time, though, whether or not you should signal – particularly when moving off – is a matter of opinion. For example, sometimes I will have noticed that a car parked not far in front of us has someone in it, but the pupil hasn’t. In that case, I would signal, but the pupil might not. I point this out to them as something they should look for – that the other car might want to move away, and that they need to know that we’re planning to go.
Examiners tend not to regard signalling/not signalling in these situations as a major problem, so learners who always signal to pull over or move away often won’t be faulted for the signal itself. I suspect that this is why many ADIs appear to teach their pupils to signal regardless. However, signalling blindly often degenerates into just that – proper and safe observation starts to suffer.
The usual guidance about when to signal is that if someone might realistically benefit from you doing it, then you should. And if you genuinely aren’t certain that anyone will, then signal anyway – and by that, I mean situations like “Hold on! Is there someone in that car?” and not “well, someone might turn up”.
At what point of the moving off procedure should you signal? As a general rule, it should be the last thing you do before actually moving. You look, assess, and decide – then signal and do it in one clean action! You do not want any delay between signal and moving away because something might turn up during that delay.
Usually, you shouldn’t use your indicators to request that people wait for you. One might stop, but that doesn’t mean the rest will, so it is dangerous under normal circumstances. There’s nothing worse than driving along on a free-moving road only to notice the clown in front has stopped dead to let someone out (and that is only marginally better than someone pulling out and forcing you to slow down). It stands to reason that doing it too often is going to increase the chances of someone tail-ending someone else if they aren’t paying attention.
If traffic is very heavy and slow-moving then you might use your indicators to request that someone lets you out.
So, you signal when you have decided to move out. You must not leave a long pause between looking and moving or signalling and moving.
All I have given above is a general procedure. It could be applied in a number of ways – even including stupid “seven-point checks” if you’re one of those who insists on this sort of thing. But as long as you check properly all around you – depending on the circumstances at the time – indicate if necessary, and move off immediately, then the actual process doesn’t matter.
I failed my test for “moving off/stopping – safely”. What did I do wrong?
It could have been one of a number of things, including:
- not checking your mirrors
- not checking your blindspot
- not checking properly (just moving your head, or not moving it far enough)
- missing something that was there
- misjudging something’s speed and causing it to slow down or veer
- moving off while you were checking
- moving off before you’d checked
- stopping without indicating when someone was behind
How do I find out what I did wrong?
Ask the examiner! And that goes for ADIs, too. There’s no point speculating or listening to people who will always blame the DSA for every fail.
What will happen if I don’t check properly?
It depends. If you miss a single shoulder/blindspot check and no one is coming, it will probably just be marked as a driver fault. If someone is coming though, it could easily be marked as a serious or dangerous fault depending on the actual situation.
In my experience, if you keep missing those checks in that same situation then it could easily mount up into a serious problem – and so be marked as a serious fault. Quite simply, missing one check (with nothing there) is a driver fault, but missing them most of the time is a serious fault.
An examiner once told me:
I work the on the “five strikes” principle unless something else makes it serious first.
As a result, I tell my pupils that if they’re lucky they’ll get away with doing something that is classed as a driver fault a couple of times. But beyond that they’re into very risky territory indeed.
I checked all round but the examiner said I didn’t.
The usual reason this happens is that you didn’t look properly – a quick flick of the head is not the same thing as actually looking to see what is coming. It is a very common problem with learners.
You must check in your blindspot – which is further round than just glancing to the offside.
But I know someone who got six driver faults under one category on their test.
You should be aiming for NO faults, not trying to calculate how many you can get away with. I know several examiners who will convert certain repeating driver faults into a serious one beyond a certain point, so it doesn’t matter that there are apparently some who won’t. It is the worst case that is most relevant, and the worst case is that a repeating fault could mount up into a serious one.
But examiners aren’t allowed to do that, are they?
Yes they are. Your main concern should be making sure you’re able to drive to the required standard so that you can easily pass the test (or, if you’re an ADI, teaching the same).
DT1 says:
There can however be occasions when one specific driving fault could by constant repetition, be regarded as serious and therefore a significant risk; for example when a candidate habitually fails to take mirror observation when appropriate.
It’s crystal clear, but if you still want to complain about it – or take issue with the precise meaning of the words “constant”, “repetition”, or “habitually” – take it up with the DSA through your local test centre manager. As much as it is clear that people want to believe otherwise, the fault is not with the examiners but with the test candidates genuinely not checking properly (possibly because they aren’t being taught properly).
It’s far better not to commit the fault (or to teach it) in the first place. Trying to weasel out of it after the event is pointless.