I saw this in the newsfeeds. It concerns advice from a RED driving instructor about how to prepare for the driving test.
There’s nothing wrong with any of the advice, though I’m not sure I agree that “interactive online learning tools” will keep people sharp between lessons. It was the first three sections that caught my eye, though. You see, lately I seem to have been slightly swamped by pupils who can barely (or don’t want to) afford lessons, and yet are desperate to pass their tests.
I mentioned a couple of months ago how one pupil’s father was desperate for him to “have a try” at the test, with no allowance whatsoever that the boy had some sort of learning issue and was a dangerous driver on the road. On his last lesson with me (less than two weeks away from the test they had re-booked against my advice) he emergency stopped in the middle of a busy junction because he suddenly realised he didn’t know where “straight ahead” was, and he would reliably steer the exact opposite way to what he should have when reversing. Indeed, I had identified with him – in these precise words – that he believed that when something was coming closer in the mirror, it was therefore moving further away from the car.
Then there was the one who had apparently taken a lot of lessons previously, and who didn’t want to take any more because he couldn’t afford it. His solution was to keep taking tests, but only doing a single hour lesson a day or two before each one. By my reckoning, he had spent something like £250-£300 on lessons with me, and a further £320 on tests. And yet I could not get him to understand that if he’d have spent even half of the amount gone on tests taking additional lessons he may well have passed by now. His otherworldly argument was that he might not have, so it would have been a waste of money. I also couldn’t get him to understand that just because he’d failed for “something different” each time that didn’t mean that he just didn’t have to do that one thing wrong again to be sure of having eliminated it. It was his underlying driving that led to these errors.
In fact, when he was in the car he was one of those people I have come to regard as “taut”. I’m sure you have seen them yourselves – the slightest external stimulus can prompt a disproportionate action by either feet or hands, and they’ll reach for the handbrake instead of the gear lever, the wipers instead of the indicator stalk, or do the “bungee leg” thing when moving off at lights. I have two female pupils at the moment who are like that, and both of them have been given beta-blockers by their respective GPs. These have had a dramatic effect in both of them, but one in particular (whose GP has also referred her to a hypnotherapist) worries me because she’s by far the most taut driver I’ve ever seen. Beta-blockers seem to be almost a miracle cure for debilitating test nerves in some learners – but people can’t keep taking them forever.
Then there’s another current pupil whose mother is in charge. His test is coming up and she’s suddenly decided that it would be best for him to have two 1 hour lessons a week instead of the single 1½ hour lesson he’s been having up until now. She’s totally wrong, because we can do more on a 1½ hour lesson than we can on two one hour ones due to travel times to and from suitable locations, and being able to cover bigger areas. Sure, it’s more money for me, but that’s not the only reason I do this job and it makes me mad that these people can’t see it. Even if he manages to persuade her to change her mind, we’ll have wasted part of a week already. To make matters worse, he was a calm and progressive driver until a few weeks ago, whereas I’m now seeing signs of tautness in him, too.
I’m not at all happy with my pass rate this year, as it’s still only 50%, and the serial failers (of which most have been taut drivers) have taken so many tests that I’ll need a spectacular run of passes to get it up to where it was last year. Part of me is thinking that these pupils are just a blip in the big scheme, but the other part is wondering if it is a sign of a more dramatic change. A small part even wonders if it’s something I’m doing wrong – I know it isn’t, but you can’t help wonder. However, it does seem to show that there’s more to passing your test than just following some rigid guidelines. Everyone is different, and they seem to be getting more different by the generation.
As regular readers will know, I have little time for people who drive badly (especially on purpose) in spite of what some looney mystery cyclists may believe. So this story in The Telegraph gave me a good chuckle.
It seems that some half-witted 17-year old up in Scotland was following the standard script to the letter when he crashed his Honda pratmobile a week after passing his test. Make no bones about it, it WAS a pratmobile – as the picture before the accident shows. And Honda Civics are at the top of the must-have pratmobile list for most boy racers. His father, Steven Clark, was not impressed.
Due to Son thinking he’s Colin McRae I now have a 2000 Honda Civic 1.4 breaking for spares…
It Seems a 1.4 was to much for him to handle
He talked the talk, but certainly didn’t walk the walk (he will be walking now, for a long time)
If only all roads were straight, we as parents wouldn’t have to worry about our over enthusiastic Son’s
It seems his ambition outweighed his talent on this occasion
I can’t think why! he’s been driving for over a week now……………………………..
Included in anything you may buy!
One FOC 17yr old Boy, complete with black eye? not from accident, administered by myself!
None of the press coverage I have seen has included that last part. Let’s hope the dad doesn’t get into any trouble over it if it’s true, because it’s certainly deserved.
Nathaniel Clark wasn’t hurt in the accident. He lost it on a bend (big surprise) because the difference between his own opinion of his driving skills and the reality was huge, but reckons he was driving slowly. It also turns out he rides a dirt bike, so it doesn’t take much effort to assess his attitude from afar.
Apparently, he apologised to his mother, but not his dad – to whom his plaintive cry is:
Dad, why are you doing this to me?
Clearly, he’s not very bright, either, if he can’t work that one out.
On a slightly different note, the car cost £1,700 and a further £1,600 to insure. The parents paid for it all. And this is where it makes me wonder what parents are thinking when they buy pratmobiles for their kids in the first place.
This story came through on the newsfeeds. It’s totally mislabelled as it does not – in any way, shape, or form – show “Britain’s Worst Drivers”. That label is merely a demonstration of the crass ignorance of the Yahoo! hacks who wrote it.
It concerns a video montage created by an anonymous cyclist with a helmet camera, titled “York Drivers”. The cyclist in question seems to be one of those people for whom a little knowledge is clearly a dangerous thing, because in his attempts to discredit drivers he has inadvertently shown quite clearly how recklessly cyclists – including himself – behave on the roads.
I’ve linked to the video below – click the image and YouTube will open in a new window – and it will be interesting to see if it remains on view when he realises how vividly it highlights his own shortcomings.
[EDIT: The video is no longer available – there’s a surprise. However, the comedian who took it hasn’t managed to get it wiped from the news story in the link above.]
Let’s be clear about this – many of the drivers in the video could hardly be regarded as particularly adept behind the wheel. Even so, very few of them could be said to be demonstrating anything other than normal behaviour. The problem is that all of the cyclists involved are behaving exactly the same, if not worse!
The very first example in the montage shows a cyclist attempting to undertake a car at a left-turn junction. The car doesn’t indicate – but anyone, be they cyclist or motorist – should know that you do not overtake near a junction, and that undertaking is especially dangerous.
The second clip shows an oncoming van turning right – and he’s signalling. The dipstick with the headcam hasn’t considered the fact that he was riding at speed whilst hidden from the oncoming driver’s sight behind another van. The van driver couldn’t possibly have seen him, and he – the cyclist – should have been much more careful.
Numerous other clips are focused on cars parked on double yellow lines, but none of this slows down our cameraman very much, and he does not stop for a second. He’d much rather squeeze through tiny gaps when the safest thing to do would be not to. Bearing in mind he has a camera on his head, there doesn’t appear to be much (i.e., any) shoulder-checking before passing any of these obstacles. He also sounds like one of those riders who has a little too much testosterone in his veins, and you can hear him muttering and grunting at everything.
In another clip, he rides on to a roundabout without any consideration for his own safety, and then grunts again when a car turns in front of him without signalling. Perhaps he hasn’t heard of the Highway Code (what am I saying, he’s a cyclist – the Highway Code doesn’t apply to him), and the part where it says you should never rely on people’s signals (and, by implication, lack thereof).
Just after that, he appears to ride off a cycle path and on to a pedestrian-only pavement and has an issue with a car that has U-turned back into a road, preventing him from shooting straight across the junction (and over double yellow lines, because there is no cycle junction there).
Later in the video, he homes in on people using mobile phones behind the wheel. In doing this, his camera shows other cyclists riding at speed in heavy traffic out of the designated cycle lane. In one example, a female is riding much faster than the traffic, which is virtually at a standstill in a queue. This is suicidal if a car tries to cut across and doesn’t see you – which is more likely if the cyclist is flying up on the inside, hidden behind other cars. It’s even more questionable when you’ve got a camera on your head, are craning your neck specifically to get footage of the drivers breaking the Law as you whizz by and have already identified that said drivers might not be paying attention because they’re farting about with their phones.
Near the end, the cameraman is screaming at drivers who are actually nowhere near as close to him as he seems to think they are. One clip suggests that there is a cycle path off the road, which he isn’t using, and he wonders why he is almost flattened by a lorry. He even appears to have moved over into the mouth of the junction to give a lorry space before it goes past.
As I said, the standard of driving depicted in the video is no worse than you’d find anywhere in the country. That doesn’t mean that it is particularly good or right, but it is part of the norm – and anyone on a bike who had any sense would try to avoid it rather than go pelting in as if they had special privileges, and then wondering why they almost got killed. In many of the clips, the anonymous cyclist in question is at least as much in the wrong as the drivers he has filmed. In most of the others he (or other cyclists) can certainly be seen to be less than lily white.
Maybe I should put up my own video of the routine behaviour I experience with cyclists. If I wanted to put them in a poor light, I wouldn’t have to edit much out.
I originally embedded the video in this article using YouTube’s embed code. The anonymous cyclist has been in contact with me threatening litigation, even though I pointed out that embedding the video was within YouTube’s terms of service. Said anonymous cyclist has also been demanding my name so he can “report me to ORDIT” because of my “dangerous attitude”.
I had to draw his attention to the use of various words and phrases in the above text which clearly identify that the motorists in many of the clips were in the wrong (at least in part). However, he seems to take exception to the fact that I also pointed out that virtually all the cyclists were also at fault, and that such behaviour – from both cyclists AND motorists – is relatively normal and is something that has to be dealt with when it happens. After all, martyrs cannot pursue matters using more sensible means.
I have spoken to my legal advisers, and it has been pointed out that although the article as it stood was not in breach of any copyright, if the owner of the YouTube page removed the embed code feature without warning, then it might become so. I reasoned that in order for someone to try and save face over this article they might resort to such actions in order to create an issue where there was none before. The anonymous cyclist has been openly sharing his video with anyone who holds the same views as him, but he appears to be prepared to adopt different methods for those who hold a different opinion. For that reason, I have now provided a direct link to the YouTube page where the video resides. If you click the image, above, it will take you there – or click this link to get the same page[EDIT: The video is no longer available – there’s a surprise. However, the comedian who took it hasn’t managed to get it wiped from the news story in the link at the start of this article]. Alternatively, go to YouTube and search for “York Drivers”. This is DEFINITELY not litigatious in any way – either now, or in future.
It’s funny that the Vigilante Cyclist has removed the video from YouTube. I bet he wishes he’d kept his mouth shut before submitting it to the media, because he can’t get it wiped from their archives quite so easily.
As I said in that discussion about parallel parking, however you look at it all it boils down to is reversing into a space behind another vehicle in a reverse ‘S’ path (or an ‘S’ path on the right side of the road, so USA readers bear that in mind). However, success, failure, and reproducibility are a direct function of the actual method used.
When I first became an instructor I tried various methods based on the ones my trainers had taught me. However, I wasn’t happy with any of them because they were so unreliable. Coming from a scientific background I wanted something that was as precise as possible, because it would then be reproducible – and reproducibility is what catches many learners out when they are trying to master this manoeuvre.
This is the method I developed as a result. Reversing into the target space an ‘S’ path is variable unless you set boundaries. This is why many of those other methods yield such variable results, because they are based on judgement, and most learner drivers don’t have that skill developed to a high enough level. This one doesn’t require such skills, and works based on fixed positions.
Step 1 is to drive up alongside the target vehicle, slightly ahead of it, and about ½ to ¾ metre away from it.
Step 2 is to reverse back until the back of your vehicle is level with the back of the target. The reason you do it this way instead of trying to start level to begin with is that you will need to look behind you. If you do that while you’re are still moving forward, you could make contact with the target car. Once you have stopped, work out where you need to aim – you want to pick something at about 45°. On the diagrams, it is the red ‘X’.
Step 3 is to steer full lock to the left and move backwards until the car is aiming at the 45° point you chose (the red ‘X’). The actual angle you go for isn’t super-critical, but getting the same angle consistently each time is.
Step 4 is to straighten the wheels and reverse back in a straight line towards the kerb. Stop when your rear nearside wheel is about ½ metre away from the kerb. This is the second vital key position.
Step 5 is to steer full lock to the right and reverse back until you are parallel with the kerb. Once you are, stop and straighten your wheels.
The method is very simple. Summarising the stages, you have:
stop slightly ahead of the target car
level up the back ends
use full lock to turn about 45° from your original position
straighten the wheels and reverse back to the kerb
use full lock to swing back in, then straighten the wheels
Once you’re in, and parallel with the kerb, just stop. You don’t need to reverse back any further (which might take you too far back, so you’d get faulted), nor do you need to move forward to close the gap. If you follow the method reasonably closely, you will be in the right place.
The real trick is being able to get to a consistent angle each time and to judge the distance from the kerb reliably – those two things work together and are critical. Not being able to do these is what makes any method unreliable. It’s like baking a cake. Use the correct quantities of your ingredients and you get a cake at the end. Use the wrong quantities and you get a mess.
A useful tip. When you pick your red ‘X’ (45°) position, try to pick something as far away as possible. Go for a house feature, such as a chimney, or even a distant tree. Avoid using a nearer point, such as a car parked on the other side of the road if there are more distant objects available.
How far ahead of the target car should I stop?
It doesn’t really matter as long as the back end of your car is further forward than the back end of the target. Just don’t overdo it and end up completely beyond the target vehicle. As a rough guide when using another car, make your wing mirrors level with the front of the target car’s bonnet (or its boot if it is facing the other way). Obviously, a lorry or van is much bigger, so you’ll have to judge for yourself.
How can I tell when I’m level with the back of the other car?
Your instructor will be able to tell you when to stop in the right place. At that point, look out of the nearside rear passenger window and look where the target car’s back end appears. Use that as your reference in future.
Do I have to be exactly level with the other car?
No, not exactly. Just near enough. If you’re much too far forwards you might clip the other car when you swing in. If you’re much too far back you’ll just finish further back than you need to be. But a bit either way shouldn’t matter.
How can I work out where 45° is?
Don’t get too hung up on the number. It is only relevant for picking something to aim at. As long as you can pick more or less 45° – and get it about the same each time – the method will work. You may find that you can judge it by eye (I demonstrate to pupils how I can do it with my eyes closed, but I have more experience than them and the majority cannot do it that way). So a reference often helps.
To get a reference, park at the side of the road and have your instructor point out something – a tree, a chimney stack, a window on a house, etc. – which is at about 45° to your current position. Look at where that object is in relation to your car and head position – maybe the middle of your door mirror, the corner of the windscreen, etc. That becomes your reference point in future. So when you’re ready to angle the car, check what your reference point lines up with (a tree, a chimney, and so on), and then go back slowly until you’re pointing the car straight at it.
Do I have choose exactly 45°?
No, but try to be reasonably close to it. When you move, the angle reduces slightly anyway. You don’t want to go too far past whatever you have picked to aim at, that’s all. The only critical part is to make sure you get more or less the same angle each time. If your angle varies, the rest of the procedure will, too.
For most pupils – many of whom don’t understand what 45° actually means – I just call it the ‘magic angle’, and keep numbers out of it altogether and stress the reference point I help them establish.
How do I know when I’m the right distance away from the kerb?
Get your instructor to stop you in the right place, then use your nearside door mirror to show you where the kerb is. In my car, if the door mirror is angled to show about a thumb’s width underneath the door handle before starting the manoeuvre, then the car will be the correct distance from the kerb just before you lose sight of the road tarmac while you’re doing it.
Am I allowed to adjust my mirrors on my test?
Of course you are. Just try to avoid doing it when you are in the middle of the manoeuvre because you’ll likely be blocking the road, and if you delay other road users unnecessarily then that can lead to faults being recorded. Adjust the mirror before you begin (but if you forget, adjust them quickly and continue).
Is it important to stop the same distance away from the kerb each time?
Yes. If you go too far back you’ll hit the kerb as you turn in, and if you don’t go far enough then you’ll finish wide once you’re straight. If your kerb distance varies, the result of the manoeuvre will vary.
Can I adjust my final position?
Yes – but only do it if you really need to. If you follow the method closely, you won’t need to adjust your position at all. Use your lessons to understand what is acceptable and what isn’t. You’re allowed to be surprisingly far back – at least one whole length of your vehicle – before it becomes too far back. If you’re less than that, don’t fiddle.
The same applies with how far from the kerb you are. If you finish brushing the kerb, you can’t fix that – you’ve already brushed it – but it will only be marked as a driver fault at worst. Just leave it be. You can be up to around 30cm (1 foot) away from the kerb – learn what that looks like in the mirror and don’t fiddle unless you have to.
What if I hit the kerb on my test?
Touching the kerb during this manoeuvre is not usually a serious fault. At worst, it is a driver fault (and it might not be marked at all if you quickly and safely correct it). Hitting the kerb hard and fast is likely to be a serious fault, and mounting the pavement almost certainly will be. Also be aware of any lamp posts or other street furniture – if you get too close to those, touching the kerb might be considered more of an issue by the examiner.
If you’ve followed the method reasonably well, you will touch the kerb when you are almost straight. If this happens, you will have enough room in front to get full lock on, move forward slightly until you are straight, then straighten up and reverse back by an equally slight amount to complete the manoeuvre. Don’t move too close to the target vehicle when you do this – that can be marked as a serious fault.
If you are still at a pronounced angle when you touch the kerb, then you have messed up the method at Stage 3 or 4, and won’t have enough space in front to make the slight adjustment mentioned above. The best option is to go back to your angle by driving forward and try that stage again.
Although you’re not supposed to do it, you might consider starting the whole manoeuvre again. I’ve known people do that and get away with it, but I know others who didn’t. It’s your decision.
Remember that with any adjustments, you will also need to add safety checks and observations. This often catches people out as they start to panic.
Is it OK to dry steer?
Yes.
Do I need to reverse back any further once I’m next to, and parallel with, the kerb?
No. The whole point of the manoeuvre is to complete it within two of your own car lengths from the back of the target vehicle (i.e in the smallest space possible). Once you’re in, reversing back any further is pointless and could mean that you end up too far back.
If I’m too far back, can I drive forwards to correct it?
Remember that in the real world there will be another car behind you. You’re only as good as the furthest distance back you travel. The examiner will be assessing you on that farthest position, not the closest. If you can follow this method consistently you won’t be too far back and there will be nothing to correct.
If you feel you need to do it, just keep your fingers crossed at the end of your test.
You haven’t mentioned observations
You need to be aware of other road users, just like with all the other manoeuvres, and the examiner will be watching to make sure you’re looking for them. As a rough guide, look all around before each stage of the procedure at the very least, and check as necessary while you are moving. This is especially important if you end up trying to adjust your position, because you probably won’t have been taught any specific procedure for it, and you might forget to check for other vehicles and pedestrians if you are panicking.
Don’t precise angles and distances make this method too complicated?
As I said previously, other methods are extremely unreliable since they often rely on judgement, and you only get one chance to get it right on your driving test. The more precise you are with your method, the more reproducible it will be.
When you strip away the details, everyone parallel parks in the same way – a backwards ‘S’ (in the UK) into a gap. My method just makes sure the ‘S’ is the same size and shape each time for those who are doing this at the start of their driving lifetimes. The actual numbers don’t matter too much, but being consistent with positions and general angles does.
Will I fail my test if I can’t parallel park?
Yes – if the examiner asks you to do it, and you can’t. The same applies to all the manoeuvres you might be asked to do.
What about doing it on the right-hand side of the road?
I’m getting increased hits from readers in the USA. Quite simply, the method still works. You just have to get to a consistent angle (45° is ideal) to your left, and figure out what to look for when you’re the right distance away from the kerb (using your right mirror). Once you have a reliable angle and reliable distance from the kerb, you’re there.
Doing it on the right is easier in the UK, since the driver sits on the right side of the car, and so can see the kerb without using the mirror in most cases.
Remember that if you vary your angle, or vary your distance away from the kerb, the end result changes. For example, if you go much beyond 45° then you’ll need to stop further away from the kerb.
This made me laugh. Public urination is a big problem in India, it seems, and a group of vigilantes have come up with a solution.
They’ve got a water cannon, and they drive around looking for the urinators – at which point they blast them with it. We’re not talking about a toy here, either. The cannon looks like it is capable of stripping the tarmac off a road! It’s labelled “The Pissing Tanker”.
In all honesty, it looks like a bit of a set up. But whether it is genuine or not – and it probably isn’t – it’s still an amusing video.
I get a lot of hits from people asking about parallel parking, so I’m going to write a How To… article on the subject to go along with the others. This article isn’t it – it’s just a bit of a discussion.
In my own experience, I’ve found that the manoeuvre pupils seem to have the most trouble with is reversing around a corner. I suspect that this is down to the fact that, unlike the others, you have to remain in control with precise adjustments throughout. However, before they’ve actually had a go, most pupils will identify parking – parallel parking, in particular – as the “most difficult”. I love to watch the look on their faces the first time I tell them that’s what we’re going to do today, but the look once they see how easy it is even better.
Parallel parking amounts to the same thing whatever method you use – the driver has to reverse into a space following a sort of backwards “S” shaped path. Any subsequent farting about comes as a result of not following that path properly, and that’s usually because the method they used isn’t very good.
Here’s a true story. Earlier this year one of my serial failers got the parallel park manoeuvre on three of her four tests (including the one she eventually passed on). It was the source of a serious fault on two of them, and the reason for that was that she had absolutely insisted on using the method her previous instructor had taught her, even though it only worked about 50% of the time. Her method involved estimating the position of the kerb (which could easily vary by ½ a metre or more), and some other nonsense about putting on one turn of the wheel, “lining up with the rear lights” on the target car, and then turning one turn the other way (this went tits up on one test because the target car was facing the other way and she couldn’t see its lights). After her last fail – amidst the tears – I put my foot down and told her she was learning MY method or nothing. As I say, she got the same manoeuvre the next time, and passed.
Whenever I pick up a new pupil who has covered the parallel park elsewhere I give them a chance to show me how they do it. If they can remember how to do it at all – and many can’t – they usually end up either too far back or too far away from the kerb. Having said that, if any of them can achieve a satisfactory result using their own method, I’ll let them carry on using it – but I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that’s happened. As long as I live, I will never understand why someone would teach pupils to reverse beyond the end of the target car, but only to apply partial lock (it’s usually “one turn”) and expect to finish within the requisite two car lengths. I’ll also never understand why someone would teach a method to a beginner which depends on how well the target car is parked, and which involves guessing where the kerb is. And don’t get me started on the problems that arise when the target vehicle is a lorry or stretch limo – try lining up diagonally with the lights and see how good the method is then!
You see, the problem stems from the fact that people who have been driving for years – and this includes a lot of instructors – have something that learners don’t. It’s called “experience”. Experience means many things, but one aspect of it is that “guessing” where the kerb is becomes slightly easier for more experienced drivers, whereas a beginner won’t have a clue – and nor will many of them be likely to acquire one by taking a couple of hours of driving lessons a week. However, let’s not deceive ourselves here. I said slightly easier, and if watching “experienced” people trying to park outside the local shops is anything to go by, this just means that there’s a marginally reduced risk of them flattening a passer-by or altering their bumper trim against street furniture. It certainly doesn’t make them parking experts.
Something else to consider is that an “experienced” driver can arse about for as long as they want until they eventually manage to park, or their conscience kicks in and they drive off to find somewhere else. It doesn’t matter if they hit the kerb or finish on it, take up two spaces, or end up diagonally with their back end sticking a metre into the road (well, not unless the council’s traffic Gestapo have been told to crack down on it at the time). In most cases, they will have the social conscience of a dog on a croquet lawn, and they won’t give a toss about how much inconvenience they are causing for everyone else (that’s another aspect of “experience”). A learner, on the other hand, is typically 17 years old, shy, nervous, has an examiner sitting next to them, and has basically got one shot at doing it perfectly in order to gain the shiny new driving licence on which their future depends. The two situations are not even in the same ball park.
For this reason, a learner needs a method that is as fool proof as possible, and not some Zen-like nonsense that fails as often as it succeeds.
The driving test is only the first step in learning to drive. Passing it means you are deemed safe to go out and gain more experience by practicing and consolidating what you learnt on your lessons. The first time you go out on your own it will be a new experience, but the second time it won’t be. The more you go out, the more confident you will become. Exactly the same thing applies to something like parallel park, where the first time you try it for real you’ll be nervous, but you will learn from it and begin to develop your own system. That’s how it has always been.
Someone found the blog on that search term – and I also notice that the same question has been asked in several forms across various forums.
The simple answer is that there IS no “best” car for a driving instructor. You could teach in a 1912 Bugatti if you wanted to… well, maybe not, but only because it wouldn’t have the right safety features (someone around my neck of the woods has one, and the fuel tank is a cylinder behind the planks that serve as seats). But any mainstream car built during the last couple of decades would easily suffice.
One thing to remember is this. If you buy an older car, there is a good chance – and the older it is, the greater that chance – it will start going wrong and cost you money in repairs that a newer one wouldn’t. It doesn’t matter one jot that someone somewhere has one of the same model that allegedly “never” goes wrong. The fact remains that as they get older – just like we humans – ALL cars tend towards the inevitable point in time when they break permanently and have to be consigned to the scrap yard, or have ridiculous and disproportionate amounts of money spent on them to keep them running.
There is no such thing as an “indestructible” car. I can assure you that even with a brand new one – and I’ve had several each of different makes and models on lease – you occasionally get one that is an absolute pain, and which keeps going wrong even though all the others have been reliable. And in terms of older cars, which I’ve also owned, there is a very fine line between keep paying for wear-and-tear repairs that are age-related and getting to the point where you don’t want to get rid of it just because of all the money you’ve thrown at it. And long experience has shown me that even the most reliable car becomes less so the older it gets. On balance, new cars are the better risk.
As an aside, and going one stage further, using a classic car to teach in might seem like a brilliant USP (unique selling point) that will attract pupils. However, you shouldn’t forget that such cars handle totally differently to modern vehicles, and given that we’re mainly teaching inexperienced people who will become inexperienced new drivers who still have a lot to learn, and who will like as not buy a normal car that’s only 10-12 years old, I’m not convinced that such a USP is appropriate for a driving school – in other words, it’s for the instructor’s benefit, not the pupils he teaches.
If you are just starting out as an instructor and only have a limited budget for a car then you are likely to fail in this business very quickly if you plan on buying one outright. I say that, because it is clear that you are trying to start out solo right from the start – which is hard enough by itself, let alone if you are carrying the additional burden of driving an ancient relic around. You might get some customers out of it – and they’ll probably be of a certain type – but there is no way you can avoid the fact that a new (or newish) car is an attraction for the typical pupil, whereas an old banger isn’t. You may find that you need to drop your lesson prices, thus tightening the noose you’ve already put around your neck.
If you have a small budget initially, your best bet is to lease a car – and that includes considering the option of leasing through a franchise, which carries the additional benefit of some backup finding pupils if you choose the right one. After all, if you spend £3,000 on a used car that you own outright, you’ll lose the whole £3,000 if dies on you. However, that £3,000 would allow you to lease a car for almost a full year, during which time – if you have a good business plan – you’ll build up a pupil base and be earning reasonable money to move beyond that first year.
So, in summary, there is no perfect car for teaching in. A good instructor will be able to teach in any relatively modern saloon or hatchback model, and if they’re just starting out they should choose based on fuel economy and their own personal preference – not someone else’s.
I’ve had a run of hits recently on the search term “how do I turn on the car heater”. The most obvious answer to this is: READ THE OWNER’S MANUAL. If your car doesn’t have one (it’s usually in the glove box or under a flap somewhere beneath the dashboard) you can easily download them off the internet.
Even without a user manual, though, the controls are pretty much self-explanatory. You usually have three rotary knobs – one for the fan speed, one for the temperature, and one to change the direction of the airflow from the fan.
The fan controller has several speeds, usually ranging from 0 (off) to 4 (maximum). The temperature controller is marked with blue (cool) and red (hot) markers, and by adjusting it you can set the mix of cool/hot air to get the right overall temperature blowing in through the vents.
The direction controller has a number of icons on it similar to those shown below.
From left to right, these represent the air blowing at the driver/passenger out of the dashboard vents, air blowing from both the dashboard and foot well vents, air blowing only into the foot well, air blowing into the foot well and through the windscreen vents, and air blowing only through the windscreen vents. Some vehicles may have other icons, but they will usually be self-explanatory if you understand the ones above. The dashboard air vents have baffles on them which can be closed or angled to adjust the airflow as necessary.
Note that the coolest air that the car can deliver using the basic heater system will be at the same temperature as the outside air, so if it’s 30°C outside then the air blowing through the vents will also be at 30°C. There will also be some ambient heating from the engine, which will be most noticeable when the car is stationary or moving slowly, so the incoming air may actually be several degrees above the outside air temperature.
Most modern cars have air conditioning, which is turned on/off using a button or switch marked “A/C”. This is capable of cooling the air down to substantially below the outside air temperature. The A/C unit also dehumidifies the incoming air, which is useful for preventing misting of your windows during cold weather, but it has the disadvantage of dehydrating the occupants of the car if it is left on all the time (it can lead to irritation of your eyes and throat).
Modern high-end cars have computerised “climate control” systems handling the airflow, often with some sort of visual display. With these it is possible to set different temperatures for the driver and passenger and – usually – the back seat passengers, too. They still use similar icons to what I’ve described above, though the precise mode of operation varies from vehicle to vehicle.
Most vehicles will also have a recirculation button (marked with a curved arrow or similar icon). This adjusts the internal baffles so that little or no outside air is directed into the car. It is useful if you drive through smoke or perhaps if you suffer from hay fever (though most cars these days have pollen filters), or if there is a bad smell outside.
It’s funny how some things won’t die. Magnetic tape has been old hat for many years now, yet many organisations still rely on the medium for data backup and restore.
The data density involved marks a huge leap in capacity for the medium. It makes you wonder what effect it will have on other forms of storage – just imagine having 200TB hard disk drives (HDDs) as standard.
This story has appeared on several newsfeeds over the last couple of days, and it deals with the frightening number of troglodytes out there who don’t understand what road signs mean. An example:
James Barter, from Southampton, Hants, admits struggling to identify some of the road signs – despite passing his test ten years ago.
The 28-year-old said: ‘I passed my driving test when I was 18 and I still struggle to tell what certain signs mean.
‘There are so many and some of the signs are not very clear or obvious.’
A higher primate would find out what a sign means if they saw one they didn’t understand. Clearly, this guy is different, and represents just about everything that is wrong with society today. How the hell can he go on driving unsupervised if he doesn’t understand basic road signs? What else about driving doesn’t he understand? Why couldn’t (and didn’t) he look up those he didn’t understand? That way – and it is a simple 5-minute task reading the Highway Code to find out – he wouldn’t have had to reveal in a national newspaper that he was such a bad driver.
The large-scale confusion over road signs comes weeks after Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin called for hundreds of thousands of ‘pointless’ signs to be torn down.
Some signs may be pointless – but that doesn’t make them meaningless (as an aside, McLoughlin should be ordering that they be torn down instead of just prattling on about them). The problem with superfluous road signs is down to incompetent local councils (of which Nottingham possesses a prime example). The typical forest of signs that can cause confusion is usually associated with cycle or pedestrian areas, and is the direct result of immature and unintelligent people in local government anxious to make some sort of mark as they pursue their incoherent and politically correct agenda.
Some of my pupils worry me from time to time, though. I remember several years ago a girl who had passed her theory test and who had her practical coming up. I often had to remind her of the speed limit on one particular stretch where the limit changed from 50mph to the national speed limit (NSL). On one lesson after many weeks of lessons I remember her asking on that same stretch: “what does that sign mean?”. It was the NSL sign. And I lose count of the times on lessons where I ask pupils who have either passed their theory or who have it coming up what a particular sign means and they simply don’t know.
It also reminds me of a Chinese pupil I once had who, for all practical purposes, couldn’t speak English (what a nightmare those lessons were). She passed her Theory Test – in English – the first time, which is a feat beyond quite a few of my English-speaking pupils. On one occasion, where after prompting from me she failed to spot a huge, illuminated 30mph sign, I managed to ascertain that when she “panicked” she “saw things in Chinese”. It was areal eye-opener, and I use it as an example to all my learners that road signs MUST speak to them loudly and clearly in words, without any lengthy translation being required.
