And he speaks the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yesterday, Arnie released this video aimed at the Russian people, telling them the truth about what Putin has done, and about what is happening to their families in Ukraine (many have Ukrainian relatives), and about what is happening to Russian soldiers (most will have sons or brothers in the military).
The last blog article simply stated the obvious detail that anyone of sound mind will already be aware of. Vladimir Putin is a f**king w*nker.
A BBC article gives some technical info which explains this fact in more precise detail.
Ukraine has fought back much harder during the first week than Vladimir Putin expected, or very probably than his generals promised him, it would…
Ukraine has proved a hard nut to crack, and the reaction of Western countries, particularly Germany, has been far fiercer than he thought. Russia’s economy has already been savagely hit. Putin’s one big friend, China, now seems worried that this Western upsurge of anger might, one day, be turned against China itself – and that serious damage could be done to the Chinese economy. It has already distanced itself from the invasion…
Finland and Sweden could both end up joining the alliance for their own protection. Putin launched this war in part to stop Ukraine one day joining NATO, but he could find more NATO members on his north-western border.
It doesn’t mention that huge swathes of Russian people are also opposed to his pathetic and diminutive Soviet-era mind. He has screwed up big time. He has fu*ked himself, and he has fu*ked Russia. And he won’t stop fu*king anyone, because he is a complete w*nker.
He has already threatened the use of nuclear weapons. This is absolute proof he is not of sound mind and needs to be stopped before he can use them. Because if he is backed into a corner, like the pathetic midget he is (he wears elevators in his shoes, by all accounts), he would undoubtedly use them. There would be nowhere else for him to go.
I don’t want to spell it out completely, but the abstract phrase ‘an ass in a nation’ comes fairly close to what is really needed right now.
Everyone is completely sympathetic to Ukraine’s plight in the face of this madman. But the West cannot get directly involved because of the modern risk – some would say the ‘certainty’ – that Putin would push the nuclear button if he were anywhere near losing. The fact that he’s already threatened it is enough for that to be beyond debate.
Eighty years ago, the last complete madman we had to deal with put a bullet in his own head to avoid being pulled up on crimes against humanity.
This one would push the button to achieve the same thing – but with greater consequences to humanity than a loud bang in one of the back rooms of a bunker. In a way, that gives Putin the height he lacks in the physical sense: he is head and shoulders worse than Hitler.
Putin is the vilest of creatures. Even extinction would be too good for him – but better for the rest of the World. And all Russians.
And his extinction is the only rational solution.
What else is there to say?
Vladimir Putin is a fu**ing w**ker!
I’ve tried to give him the benefit of the doubt all these years. But now, all doubt is removed. And he is a fu**ing w**ker!
DVSA has just sent out an email alert advising that all driving and riding tests at certain test centres are cancelled due to Storm Eunice.
It’s a long list, mainly involving test centres in the south of the UK. Centres involved currently are Ashford Kent, Ashford Middlesex, Aylesbury, Banbury, Barking, Barnet, Barnstaple, Basildon, Basingstoke, Belvedere, Bishops Stortford, Bletchley, Bodmin, Borehamwood, Brentwood, Bristol (Kingswood) MPTC, Bristol Avonmouth, Bromley, Burgess Hill, Bury St Edmunds, Cambourne DTC & LGV, Cambridge, Cambridge (Hardwick), Canterbury, Cardington (Bedford), Chelmsford (Hanbury Road) GVTS, Chertsey, Chichester, Chingford, Clacton-on-Sea, Colchester, Crawley, Croydon, Culham LGV, Eastbourne, Enfield LGV, Enfield MPTC, Erith, Farnborough, Folkestone, Gillingham GVTS, Gillingham MPTC, Goodmayes, Greenford, Greenham LGV, Guildford, Hastings, Hendon, Herne Bay, High Wycombe, Hither Green, Hornchurch, Ipswich, Isle of Scilly, Isleworth, Lancing, Launceston, Lee On The Solent, Leighton Buzzard Car/LGV, Letchworth, Loughton, Lowestoft, Luton, Maidstone, Mainstream (Kent), Mill Hill, Mitcham, Morden, National Driving Centre (NDC), Newbury (Hambridge GVTS), Newport(Isle Of Wight), Norwich MPTC, Oxford (Cowley), Penzance, Pinner, Poole GVTS, Portsmouth, Reading, Redhill, Rookley LGV, Salisbury, Sevenoaks, Sidcup, Slough, Southall, Southampton (Forest Hills), Southampton (Maybush), Southampton LGV, Southend, St Albans, Stevenage, Swindon LGV, Swindon, Thurrock, Tilbury, Tolworth, Tottenham, Trainfor (Kent), Tunbridge Wells, Uxbridge, Wanstead, Watford, West Wickham, Weston-Super-Mare, Winchester DTC, Wood Green, Yeading.
New tests dates will be booked automatically if you are affected.
This is interesting. DVSA has announced that it will be trialling carrying out the reverse bay park exercise in non-DVSA car parks during February and March 2022.
The trials will be conducted in Stafford, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Barnsley, Wakefield, Chester, Northwich, Upton, Wallasey, St Helens, Wolverhampton, Gillingham, Bishopbriggs, Gateshead, Durham, and Abergavenny.
I’m all for it – especially if it stops those twats who think they’re good ADIs, and yet who see the test centre car park as some magical place that their little darlings must practice in at all costs. Even when tests are coming and going, and when they have expressly been asked not to.
The first time any of my pupils get to bay park in the test centre car park is on the day of their test. Once when we turn up, and perhaps a second go if they get that manoeuvre once their test commences. The rest of the time I use business and retail parks, or supermarket car parks.
The sooner DVSA implements this fully, the better. But I bet you some instructors will be opposed to it.
The problem of smeared windscreens in the rain has driven me nuts ever since I started driving, but it became a major headache when I became a driving instructor.
We’ve all experienced it. You get a few spots of rain, and when the wipers wipe you get a mosaic pattern left behind for a few seconds. In heavy rain it’s like someone poured chip fat on the screen and you can’t see properly.
Just to clarify, but there are two separate situations involved here. The normal everyday situation is that muck gets on to your windscreen, and you need to get it off. You do that by squirting some of your screen wash on to the glass, and the wipers wipe the muck away. I’ve talked about how to do that in the article about making your own screen wash. However, over time you get oil and wax bound to the screen which is very difficult to get off, and that is the second situation, and the subject of his article.
Things came to a head some years ago when my lease company replaced my car. From the first day I owned it, in rain you couldn’t see anything. All the previously tried methods, which had given various levels of success, failed completely. Scrunched up newspaper was no good, sodium lauryl sulphate had a minor effect, various solvents also minor, and Clearalex was probably the best but still far from perfect.
The problem was so bad that I seriously thought that the glass must have been damaged in some way.
Normal smearing is caused by gunk on the road loosely binding to the glass. All you need is a bit of water and detergent and it comes straight off. But wax is a totally different matter. A tiny amount of it can affect the entire surface of the glass, and is does not come off with normal detergents. In fact, the process of washing the car can be a major culprit – sponges and rags get wax on them from any waxing process you use, and if you go near the glass with them it gets on there, too. It’s even worse if you use hand car washes regularly (as I do).
The other thing to remember is that your wiper blades can also get wax on them. Even if you get your glass sparkling clean, a few wipes of contaminated blades can mess it up again almost immediately. Furthermore, if you clean the glass and the blades, but leave any wax in the well where the wipers sit, they pick it up and spread it around again.
That lease car – and several others since – appears to have had some manufacturing residue still on the glass, because I was also having problem inside with misting and hazy marks with certain sun angles.
So how can you get it off?
Clearalex is available as a liquid, but you used to be able to buy it in sachets in powder form. It is intended to be added to your screen wash, and it cleans quite well, but the drawback is that it leaves a horrible white residue when it dries. I have had some success with Sodium Lauryl Sulphate (SLS), which is an anionic surfactant used in many household products. It removes quite a lot of windscreen gunk, but it didn’t seem to touch wax or my residue, and it also leaves annoying white marks on the glass when it dries.
However, I eventually came across Sugar Soap. I’d not heard about it before, but it is used by decorators and builders to remove grease and dirt from surfaces prior to painting, and it occurred to me that that was precisely what I was trying to achieve with my apparently permanently gunked windscreen.
Wikipedia describes it thus:
Sugar soap as typically found in Commonwealth countries is a cleaning material of variable composition sold for use on surfaces affected by greasy or tarry deposits which are not easily removed with routine domestic cleaning materials. When in dry powder form it looks like table sugar thus causing the name.
The solution is alkaline and its uses include cleaning paintwork in preparation for repainting.
The powder form looks exactly like Clearalex powder, and I suspect that there may be some similarities in chemical composition. But you can get liquid and trigger spray variants of it. The main difference between Clearalex and sugar soap is that the latter is dirt cheap, whereas the former comes at a premium price. You simply make up a bucket of the stuff with warm water and give your windscreen a good going over with a clean rag or sponge.
In the case of my ‘damaged’ windscreen, I soaked some cloths in the solution and gave my windscreen a good scrub. Then I then took the car out for a run in the rain.
Initially, I thought it hadn’t worked. But with each wiper pass the glass was became clearer and clearer. The sugar soap appeared to have softened whatever it was on the glass and it was gradually coming off. When I got back home I soaked the rags again and this time left them covering the windscreen for about half an hour (not forgetting the bit under the wipers). I also cleaned the blades with it. This time the windscreen was absolutely crystal clear.
In conclusion, Sugar Soap is great for one-off cleaning. However, it leaves a nasty white residue when it dries if you try to include it in normal screen wash.
Traffic Film Remover (TFR)
Not long after all this, I stopped using the Tiger Wash (drive thru) at my local garage and started using a local hand car wash – partly as a result of the garage hiking fuel prices, and partly because the hand car wash also did a damned good vacuum clean of the inside of the car. I was intrigued at how clean they could get the car just using some small hand pumps and a power spray. The next time I was in, I did a bit of snooping around and discovered ‘TFR’ – or ‘traffic film remover’.
After reading up on the subject, I bought some TFR In a nutshell, a 1-2% TFR solution gets all the oil/wax film off a windscreen in one go, and it also seems to also attack the residue I’d been plagued with on my lease cars since that first one that had it, though sugar soap is still best for this.
I use TFR in a small spray bottle to clean my alloys and bodywork in between visits to the hand car wash when I have an upcoming test. It removes brake dust from alloys, as well as summer tree gum and bird crap (especially when the little sods have been eating blackberries and insist on sitting on the telephone wire right above my driveway).
And a final note. You can make your own screenwash using TFR. But be advised this does still leave a slight residue.
Does TFR damage the windscreen?
No.
Does TFR damage paintwork?
If it is the non-caustic type, and if it is used at the manufacturer’s recommended concentration, no. But remember that TFR will remove any wax you have applied, so you will need to re-wax after using it on painted surfaces. However, removing wax is exactly what you want if it’s on your windows, which is ultimately why I use it.
Strongly caustic types – which are cheaper and harsher, and often used to shift several centimetres of crap off the undersides of lorries – could damage painted surfaces if used at high strengths and if left on for too long.
Is there a non-chemical solution?
A reader (from Australia) wrote to me to tell me that he had had success removing that new-windscreen film using Cerium Oxide paste. You can buy it easily from various places (including Amazon) in various forms – powder, paste, or block – and it is specifically used for polishing glass. If you buy it, make sure you get the finest grade possible – ideally, one which is specifically sold for the intended purpose.
Can you put oil on the windscreen to prevent smearing?
Or, as it was put to find the blog, ‘can u put oil on wind screen 2 prfent rain’? NO. It will make it worse.
My windscreen is smearing when it snows
That’s probably a different thing, and not ‘smearing’ at all. When the windscreen wiper rubbers get cold, they also get stiff. As a result, instead of flexing to the windscreen contours and bending forwards and backwards on each stroke of the wiper, they snag and bounce across. They may even not touch parts of the screen properly on the wipe. All of this is often accompanied by a horrible grunting sound, and it leaves behind a trail of water streaks.
Also, if there are remnants of snow on the blades, this can leave a trail of melt water as the blades wipe. You get similar effects if a leaf or small piece of blossom gets stuck on your blades.
I see rain spots after my wipers wipe
Then you’ve got wax or some other coating on your screen. I get it after I’ve been to the car wash, and I remove it using TFR and/or sugar soap.
Don’t forget that the wiper blades must also be cleaned (as well as the space below the blades when they are in their parked position). There’s no point cleaning the glass of wax if the rubber still has it on it. The wipers will put the wax back as soon as you use them.
From 29 January 2022, new changes to the Highway Code (HC) come into effect.
The new hierarchy for road users is as shown in the graphic above. Pedestrians first, then cyclists, then motorcyclists, then cars and vans, and finally lorries. This is based on who is likely to get the most damaged if any one of the other things hits them. And at this stage – as long as you don’t apply any reality to the situation – it makes perfect sense. Well, apart from the fact they left horses off the graphic, but more on that later.
However, the instant you do apply reality, you can see potential issues.
You see, the top three in the hierarchy consists of the vast majority of the population, who either aren’t aware that the HC exists, or who treat it as advisory even they do. And to make matters worse, the first and second groups in the hierarchy will become acutely aware of these changes thanks to the media, and a significant proportion of those will therefore push it to the limits.
Look at this example of something that happened to me while I was driving to a lesson a couple of weeks ago.
[vplayer id=’36736′]If that road was 30mph (or if he’d have done that in front of one of his neighbours in their Audis or low-slung Corsas who don’t recognise speed limits in the first place) he’d be in intensive care right now, or worse, But this is what cyclists do! And he got a mouthful from me out of the window.
You see, the HC is changing like this. Whereas before, a pedestrian crossing the road at a junction was supposed to make sure it was safe and give way to anything turning in, now it is the pedestrian – one of those least likely to be aware of the Highway Code – who can just walk out regardless and it will be the driver/rider of the vehicle who is supposed to give way. And the hierarchy gives the same precedence to cyclists. I mean, we never see them jump on a pavement to skip lights and ride across a junction, do we?
Imagine the twat in the video above coming round a corner and colliding with a pedestrian being equally twattish by by just stepping out. In Broxtowe, Aspley, and Strelley (among others all over the country) it is deeply embedded in the single helix of their DNA to behave like that.
I’m just dying to see how that will be resolved, since the cyclist would have no insurance, and unless he hangs around – which he’s unlikely to do if he’s maimed someone and knows he was being a prat – there is little chance of finding him. Christ, the police can’t even find the boy racers and illegal off-road bikers in Strelley most of the time, so cyclists are well out of the mix on that one.
A lot of rear-end collisions occur when cars stop suddenly and the driver behind isn’t paying attention. Let’s be under no illusions here: drivers of cars, vans, and lorries can be as afflicted with stupidity as much as cyclists and pedestrians are. However, drivers tend to be more aware of the fact that if they hit one of the specimens of those other groups, they will damage them quite badly. But imagine driving into a junction as some prat walks (or rides) in front of you. The possibilities are endless, for hitting the pedestrian/cyclist, or having some imbecile ram into you if you stop suddenly.
This is a stupid change. Roads were built for traffic, and yet precedence is now given to pedestrians and Spandex fetishists with serious attitude problems, all because of the Green Agenda.
Oh, and horses. I have no problem with horse riders, since they almost invariably do not have attitude problems (those that do are in a small minority). I’m careful with them, and they want to be careful with me, and in all honesty, if they were first on that hierarchy I’d give it my full support. However, the number of cyclists with behavioural issues is close to 100% (though close to 100% of them don’t realise it). Virtually none of them care about anyone except themselves, and they should not be given this bone on which to gnaw.
I woke up this morning to be met by a very unusual and rather exciting sight just outside the kitchen window.
A bird – I believe it is a Goshawk [correction: A Sparrowhawk, so the article title is now a bit off] – had caught a pigeon and was eating it. It was quite macabre, since the pigeon was not dead and remained alive for at least 30-60 minutes while the hawk tore it to pieces and ate it. The whole business took a couple of hours, and it ate everything except the feathers.
Then, just before dusk, I looked out of the window and saw it – or at least another bird – had caught another pigeon. This one was dead, and it flew off with it this time.
It was a magnificent creature, though – nature is both cruel and beautiful – but it was so close I got a couple of dozen great pictures from the open bathroom window and through the kitchen window glass.
We do get the occasional evidence of a major incident in our garden (which is quite large) judging from the explosion of feathers we see. I’ve mentioned before that I came home one Sunday afternoon some years ago and saw a large bird of prey eating a pigeon at the far end of the garden.
But I hope it sticks with a pigeon diet and leaves the smaller birds alone.
Update: I’ve had a rethink on this and won’t be trying to build an entire system after all. After playing around with CCTV cameras I have realised they can do most of the work already.
Update (2023): As a result of fairly frequent issues with the Ring not recording video, recording blank video, or dropping off the network altogether (requiring troubleshooting and rebooting) – which has caused me to miss several callers and deliveries – the final straw came with Ring’s discontinuation of the desktop app. I have switched to the Reolink PoE Doorbell as of mid-2023.
A few years ago I bought a Ring video doorbell. After a bit of fiddling setting it up, it has worked reasonably well, though it isn’t perfect.
For a start off, it relies on Wi-Fi, which is a bloody nightmare at the best of times in the home environment. It is also totally dependant on Ring’s own cloud system (it isn’t an ONVIF camera, which I will go into later). But my main niggle is that I have no control over my data – and Ring is trying to make access to it even more difficult, thus enhancing the imperfections.
You see, the Ring system can currently be accessed via a desktop app, a smartphone app, or via a browser. I use the desktop app to monitor my system, because I can see absolutely no point in having a HD camera and only viewing it on a small smartphone screen. Furthermore, the smartphone app has a tendency to alert you up to a minute or more after an event has been triggered (I often get in my car and drive off from my house, only to have my phone vibrate when I get to the end of the road informing me I left a short while ago). And the browser interface has two-factor authentication and logs you out every five minutes, so if you get an alert, it can take some seconds to log in, by which time whoever was at the door has left. The desktop app is always connected (albeit with a tendency to decide not to give a live feed after it has been triggered). And another niggle is that the system only records several seconds of footage when an event occurs – it doesn’t record continuously.
But a couple of months ago, Ring unilaterally announced it was discontinuing the desktop app – initially, in mid-October, and currently (following uproar across the community), in December.
As I said, the Ring doorbell and the Ring system are not perfect. It can be glitchy, and it could do things better (like record continuously). But it’s a million times better than just ‘ding-dong’’ when someone calls, especially when that someone knocks instead (which most seem to do). However, without the desktop app, the glitchiness factor increases in significance considerably – the variable time lags with the other two methods are simply not acceptable. And as the Ring is a subscription device, I was rather miffed at this drastic change.
Running in parallel with all this is a very relevant separate story. During the summer I installed a birdbox with a camera in it in my garden. Once I’d assembled it and powered it up, it was immediately visible on my home network. That’s because it is an IP camera, and it uses the ONVIF protocol (as I mentioned at the start, Ring doesn’t do that, and forces you to use its own cloud service). Being ONVIF also means I can stream the camera feed live. Admittedly, my birdbox camera is a Wi-Fi system in this case (it’s at the end of the garden, after all), but ONVIF cameras can be wireless or wired – it doesn’t matter, and they just have to be discoverable on your network, which the ONVIF protocol takes care of. Better still, with my NAS system – which has Surveillance Station software pre-installed – I can continuously record the footage. Obviously, there’s no point saving every minute of every day forever, so I have it set to automatically delete anything older than (in my case) two days. This gives me time to manually save any particular footage I want to keep. It has motion detection, and I can edit the zones I want to monitor (and edit detection sensitivity as necessary). And best of all, all the data belong to me, and they are free – no subscriptions of any kind.
You can probably see where this is heading. On the one hand, you have the Ring doorbell – which taps into your network, but which has to communicate with Ring’s own ring-fenced servers across the internet, and those have to communicate back across the internet (or by SMS) to send any messages. It doesn’t record continuously, and no internet (or no Ring cloud) means no functioning doorbell. On the other hand, you have an ONVIF camera, which doesn’t require an internet connection, just a local network, which records continuously, and which has virtually the same overall functionality as far as the camera is concerned (just not a bell push feature).
I mean, come on! Is there a DIY project here or what?
I discovered that you can build an ONVIF camera using the Raspberry Pi. You can get open source motion detection software specifically for the Pi (though my Surveillance Station software already has that). And you can include various event detection features – button presses, for example – in a multitude of different ways.
The schematic diagram at the top of this article shows what I am planning right now. I will have a camera system based on a Raspberry Pi Zero with a bell-push button on the outside of my front door. This will connect to a hub, based on a Raspberry Pi 4, on the inside of the door (most likely, by a wired connection through the door jamb, but with Wi-Fi as a back up for the short distance of a couple of inches if necessary). The Pi 4 will be on the network, and almost certainly wired. Finally, I want two remote alarm units (one upstairs, and one downstairs), and I haven’t decided yet whether these will be wired or wireless – a lot comes down to how prepared I am to lay network cables, and the routes I could take if I did. I also haven’t decided whether to control them from the Pi4 or via the network. These remote alarms will be audio-visual – they will chime and flash.
If anyone is thinking I will end up with something the size of a fridge on my front door, just bear in mind the Pi Zero is 30mm x 65mm x 13mm in size. Camera modules are smaller, though the lens adds height. What I have in mind will certainly look different to a Ring doorbell, but it will be of a similar overall size if I assemble it in an appropriate way. And a Pi 4 is only 57mm x 86mm x 11mm, so it will hardly be out of place if suitably enclosed behind the door.
This will be fun. Watch this space…
Originally published in 2011, but updated periodically.
There seems to be a lot of confusion over how to turn right at crossroads when another vehicle is turning right from the opposite direction.
Driving: The Essential Skills (TES) – that’s the official DVSA guide to driving – says the following:
Turning right when an oncoming vehicle is also turning right
When two vehicles approaching from opposite directions both want to turn right, there are two methods that can be used. Either method is acceptable, but will usually be determined by
- the layout of the crossroads
- what course the other driver decides to take
- road markings
Turning offside to offside
The advantage of this method is that both can see oncoming traffic.
In congested traffic conditions, leave a space for approaching traffic to turn right.
Turning nearside to nearside
This method is less safe because the view of oncoming vehicles isn’t clear. Watch out for oncoming traffic hidden by larger vehicles. Motorcyclists and cyclists are particularly vulnerable, as they would be hidden by any type of vehicle.
Be ready to stop for oncoming vehicles.
Police control or road markings sometimes make this method compulsory.
Defensive driving
Try to make eye contact with the driver of the approaching vehicle to determine which course is best. Your speed should allow you to stop if the other driver pulls out across your path.
The Essential Skills
What’s the difference between nearside to nearside and offside to offside turning? Well, the nearside of the car is the one nearest the kerb, and the offside is the one farthest away from the it (the driver’s side). If you were turning offside-to-offside, this is what you’d be doing.
Note how each vehicle goes around the rear of the other, and so each has a completely clear view of the road ahead.
However, many road junctions are laid out so that offside-to-offside is impractical, or there might be a lot of traffic turning from the opposite side. This is where it would be necessary to use nearside-to-nearside instead. The positioning looks like this.
Here, the cars pass in front of each other, but that means there is a large blind spot created by the other vehicle(s), so you should always exercise caution if you are doing it this way. Only turn if you know it is clear, because cyclists and motorcyclists can still get past even on quite narrow roads.
As TES says, either method is perfectly acceptable, though one carries more risk.
Remember that every junction is different, and what works in one place will likely be different at another.
If you’re turning right from a side road at crossroads, and someone is doing the same on the other side, who has right of way? Officially, no one does. So, how do you deal with it at a junction where there are no marked turning areas?
The advice is to make eye contact with the other driver, but no one tells you how that translates into a solution. Fortunately, the other driver will do one of two things that effectively solve the problem for you. They will either pull out to try and ‘beat’ you (just let them get on with it), or they will flash their lights to tell you you can go first.
You ought to know that flashing headlights officially only means ‘I am here’, and nothing else. The problem is that if the other driver flashes you, other people will also see it and could assume it is directed at them. Don’t ignore it, but if you are absolutely sure it is directed at you, make certain there is nothing coming, don’t take risks, and take advantage of the opportunity. On your test, if you flash your lights at someone like this, you would probably get a serious fault for it. But if you respond correctly to someone flashing at you, you won’t be marked for it, because you’re not doing anything wrong.
An unwritten rule is that whoever got to the junction first takes priority, but you can’t assume everyone else will see it that way. Audi and BMW drivers certainly won’t.
Remember that the Highway Code says you shouldn’t beckon other drivers and road users. It doesn’t say you can’t communicate with them. Just don’t wave them forward – let them make their own decisions.
What happens when both cars are turning right at crossroads?
Neither car has priority. The options available to you are to turn nearside-to-nearside or offside-to-offside, as explained above.
When you reach the junction, make eye contact with the other driver. It isn’t a contest for you, so be prepared to give way if they treat it as though it is. You won’t lose anything by waiting for a few seconds while he gets out of the way. Obviously, if he gives way to you then you should check that it’s safe and proceed.
Can you flash your headlights?
Don’t flash your headlights at anyone on your test unless it is to alert them to your presence.
Many other drivers will flash their headlights to tell you they are giving way to you. It’s your responsibility to check that it is safe to go, and if you’re sure the flash was directed at you, just take advantage of it.
When you’ve passed your test, you probably will use your headlights for this occasionally. Just don’t get carried away and do it all the time.
Can you wave people through?
No. Never wave people through. It is dangerous.
But should you do these things on your test?
No. Don’t flash your headlights or gesture at people on your test. However, it is possible that a situation could arise where the only sensible thing to do is to flash your headlights or gesture to someone – even to beckon them.
Many years ago I had a pupil on test. He turned into a narrow road, and further down it was blocked by a bin lorry making bin collections, and the road wasn’t wide enough for two cars with all the parked vehicles along one side. He stopped. After a pause, he said to the examiner ‘I can’t get past’. The examiner replied ‘well, what would you do if you were here on your own?’ The pupil replied ‘well, I’d probably go up on the pavement to get past that way’. The examiner said ‘well, off you go’. He made sure it was safe to do it, and went by the lorry. And he passed.
You have to assess, be confident… and be safe.
Pupils don’t understand what offside and nearside mean.
Then educate them! It’s what they’re paying you for.
Offside to offside turning is stupid – people don’t do it.
No it isn’t, and yes they do. This ridiculous statement comes from poor quality instructor training. Sometimes it is road marked that you should do it. As TES says: either method is acceptable.
Marked crossroads are invariably nearside-to-nearside anyway.
No they aren’t! Just because you’ve never seen the other kind doesn’t mean they don’t exist. There are quite a few in Nottingham which are included in test routes.
This comment was picked up from a forum which was visiting this article when it was originally published, and it is simply untrue. As I’ve made clear, either method is acceptable and which one you use depends on:
Offside to offside is unquestionably the safest method wherever it is possible to use it. Blindly trying to do nearside to nearside without understanding what you’re doing often means cutting corners, forcing others to stop or slow down, and taking needless risks. It points to ignorance of road rules and poor attitude.
Why should you check your mirrors when turning right?
One word: cyclists!
You ought to do a quick shoulder check, as well, just to be on the safe side. Trust me, not that long ago I saw a cyclist race up to a car which was turning right into Netherfield near the Colwick test centre, and turn right on his offside just as the car moved off. I’ve also seen them go round the nearside and do it.
To be fair, it isn’t just cyclists (though it is mainly them who are the problem). Motorcyclists (especially mopeds, which are just powered bicycles when you consider the idiots who usually ride them) will do it, and I’ve even had a van overtake (on the offside) when turning into a side road (I reported him to the police).
Who has priority at unmarked crossroads?
The short answer is no one does. Even at marked ones you can never be completely certain what others are going to do.
However, as a general rule for yourself, assume that if you are going to cross the path of anyone else, then you don’t have any sort of ‘priority’. In other words, if you are turning right at a crossroads, and someone on the opposite side wants to turn to their left or go straight ahead (and they might not be signalling even if they’re going left or right), don’t take any risks and just let them get on with it.
Make eye contact with the other driver. They may indicate with a gesture that they are allowing you to have priority – priority can be given, but never taken or assumed.
Driving: The Essential Skills (TES) says:
- if you’re turning right and the other vehicle is going ahead or turning left, you should normally wait for the other vehicle to clear the junction before you make your turn. Otherwise, you’d be cutting across their path
People come up with all sorts of ‘what if’ scenarios for this situation, but the simple answer is not to take risks, and not to assume other people are good drivers. For the sake of a few seconds, it is a minor inconvenience at most. Just give them priority (or let them assume they have it). That way, you are driving defensively even if they aren’t.